(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Natural resources study for Alachua County, Florida"

FL3 
Alachua 

80 

1975 

C.2 



«^ (^. 




NATURAL RESOURCES 




ROOM USE 
ONLY'^ 






■s:TY 



OF oj 







North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 



'i- c 



COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP 

1975 



OFFICERS 

Robert J. Spence, Chairman* 
Samuel N. Holloway, Vice-Chairman 
Ralph W. Kluge, Secretary-Treasurer 



Jack Durrance 



ALACHUA COUNTY 



Ralph Kluge 



E.W. Hodges 



BRADFORD COUNTY 



George W. Roberts, Jr. 



Gerald Griffis 



UNION COUNTY 



Paul Riherd 



Robert H. Cato 



CITY OF ALACHUA 



Glenn DuBois 



Clayton C. Curtis 
Samuel N. Holloway 



CITY OF GAINESVILLE 



James G. Richardson 



Carnell C. Henderson 



CITY OF HAWTHORNE 



Robert J. Spence 



Drayton Malphurs 



CITY OF HIGH SPRINGS 



L.W. Register 



Resigned May 14, 1975 



/^ _ ^j - 00/ - 6000' Cxx/^ 

a f 



NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR 
ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA 
1975 



The preparation of this report was financed in part 
through a comprehensive planning grant from the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. 



July, 1975 



North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 
Five Southwest Second Place 
Gainesville, Florida 32601 



BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA M- K' P-'" N' 
SHEET I 



3.M<i t ipiciu Vs AccissiiMi .\. 



4. Ill ii. .11:. i ^uht It K 



Natural Resources Study for Alachua County, Florida 



5. Kcporl I). it. 

July, 1975 



6. 



7. Author's ) 



Alan L. Csontos 



8. 1'i.TtorniiriL; < )r,u,ini/..it ion K. [t. 



No. 



'•NCFRPC-75-001 



9. I'c rloriiiin^ ( )rf;ami'.a( ion N.\iiir anj Addrt ss 

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 
Five Southwest Second Place 
Gainesville, Florida 32601 



10. l'ro:>,t I .isk Work I nil \, 



1 1. f .intr.it I ('.rant \o. 



CPA-FL-04-29-1068 



12. "siMinsorin^; Oryanixat ion Xarrif and A.idr^ ss 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
661 Riverside Avenue 
Jacksonville, Florida 32204 



13. I \ ]n- ot K<,purt \: Period 
( ovirtd 

Final 



14. 



15. Supplementary Notes 



16. AhsTaets 

The purpose of this study is to identify and describe tlie major 
natural resources of Alachua County, to define their areal extent, 
and to review the relative values and limitations of their com- 
ponents. This purpose is met by both a written text documenting 
the basic resources of the County and also a series of general 
maps depicting resource characteristics. 

Utilizing this information, the study identifies some of the areas 
of interaction and relationships between natural systems. It also 
provides a basic knowledge upon which to better assess the short 
and long term impacts between development and natural resources 
within Alachua County. 



17. Key Words and Document An.iU sis. 17a. niscriptorv 

Natural resources. Environmental analysis. Resource planning. 
Resource analysis. Resource inventory 



17b. Identifiers Openl'.nded Terms 



17c. ( OSA 11 lieldA.roup 



18. \\ ail.ibil ity Statement 

Available from the North Central Florida 
Regional Planning Council, Five Southwest 
Second Place, Gainesville, Florida 32601 



19. Sei urity ( lass iThi 
Ri-port ) 

rN( LASSUJI 1) 



257 Sei uritv ( lass Tl hi- 
l'a^;e 

I N( I.ASsJI II p 



21. \... ,.i 



22. I'n, . 



Of"/l NriS-i5 IHI.V J-7JI 



THIS FORM MAY BI- KI-PKOIM-C l-D 



•jiCOV<N<-DC '4952-P7C 



INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Biblio^jraphic Data Sheet based on COSATl 
(iuidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal (iovernment, 
PB-180 600). 

1. Report Number. l-.ai h inJ iv idu.i Ily houtKi report ^h.ill c .irry .1 imiiiiu .ilph.inunurii. Ji-- iuii,\l ion .-,(. let tcii In tin pirforniin^ 
organization or provided hy the spotir^ori !!>; organization. I se upperv.a-^t lutcr-^ ai^^^ Arahii nunierals only I wainples 

|-ASI;H-\S-8" and !• A.\-Kn-6S-09. 

2. Leave blank. 

3. Recipient's Accession Number. Ke>-irved li>r u-^i- in e.ich n port ncipuiit. 

4. Title and Subtitle, litii should iiidiciti ik-irK aiul hrielly tin- >iih)eit coverage ol the rtpori, and be dispIaMd [Promi- 
nently. Sit suhtitk . it iiseil, in sni.ilKr t > p<. or otherwise suborilinate it to main title. \«'hen a report is prepared in niort- 
than one volume, repi.it the primary title, .idd volume number .iiui ilii ludi ^ubtitK lor the -.pteilie volume. 

5. Report Date, i at li r. port shall carry .1 d.ite iiuiu.itini; at le.ist month .md \e.ir. Indii.ite the h.isis on which it w.is selecteil 
ic .^., date 01 issue, date of approval, tl.ite ol prep, irai ion. 

6. Performing Organization Code. Leave hi. ink. 

7. Author(s). Ciive n.imifsi in conventional order (e.^;., John K. Doe. or l.l<e>hert Poe K List author's affiliatiexi il it ditters 
trom the perte)rmin,i; e)r^anizat ie)n. 

8. Performing Organization Report Number. Insert il perlormini: or^.miz.it ion wishes ti> .issi^n this number. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address, dive- name, street, city, state, .ind zip e dele-. List tU) more than two levels ol 
.111 (iru.inizat i on.) 1 hierarchy. Display the- name t)l the e)rj;anizat ion exactly as it shouKl appear in denernmeni iiuleNes such 
as USGRDR-I. 

10. Proiect Task Work Unit Number. I'se t lu- prii|eet, task .ind work unit numbers under which the report was prepared. 

11. Contract Grant Number. Insert e ontr.ie i I'r urant number under whieh repeirt was preparevL 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address. Iiu lude zip ce)de. 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered. Indie. ite interim, final, etc., .uid , it .ipplicabK-, d.ite s ctivered. 
14- Sponsoring Agency Code. I.e.ive bl.ink. 

15. Supplementary Notes. l-.nter inform.ition n<M ine luded elsewhere but useful, suvh .is: Pre p.ired in ee»'p< rat ion with . . . 

I r.msl.ition ol . . . Presented at e e)ntereiu c of . . . I'o be pul'^l isheil in . . . Supersexles . . . ."^uppi^ ;: ■ .11 s . . . 

16. Abstract. Ine lude- .i brief (200 words or less) l.ietual summ.try of th(- nH>st s ii;nil ic.int inlorm.ition eoniaiiu,! in tin re-port. 

II the report contains a sif;niticant bibliof;r.iphy or liter,iture surve y, mention it here. 

17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors, .seleet Ironi the llu-saurus ol 1 nciiiee r int .ind Scie-ntilii I e rnis • 
proper authorized terms that identify the- m.i |or eoiue-pt ol the rese ,irch .ind .ire- suffie iently specilic and pre » Isi 10 he u- • 
as index entries for catalo^in>;. 

(b). Identifiers ond Open-Ended Terms. Lse- identiliers le)r project names, code names, equipment designators, et> . ' 
open-ended terms written in descrlpteir torm lor the)se subjects te)r which ne> elescriptor exists. 

(c). COSATI Field Group. l-'ield and Croup assignments are- to be t.iken from the 1 M^s ( O.s.ATl ."subject ( .Ue-cor;. I 
Sine e th(- maiority ol documents arc mull id isc iplinary in nature-, the primary I-ield Cire)up assif;nmcnt(s ) will be- the- spei itii 
discipline, area e>l human endeavor, or type- eit physical objeet. 1 he .ippl icat ionfs ) will be- creiss-rcf erenced with se a ond.ir\ 
lield (iroup assiunments that will tollow the primary |'>ost in^jf s ). 

18. Distribution Stotement. Denote rele.isabi 1 ity to the public or limit, ilion I e)r reasons other th.in security fe)r example "Ke- 
le.ise unlimited". ( ite .ui\ av.iilabil it\ to tin- public, with .uhlress ,iiui price. 

19 & 20. Security Classification. Do ne>t sul>mit el.issilltd re'ports to the N.ttion.il I eehnic.il 

21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number ol p.iues. inclueliiii; this one ,ind einnumbe-re d p.ites, bur e se lud iiii: distribution 
list, it ,iny. 

22. Price. Insert the price set by the N.itlon.il lerhnicil lnloriii.it 1011 s,.r\ii-f or the- dovernnunt i'rmtinf; Olliei, il kiu>wn. 



r O F. M •„ T I S- < ^ 'REV 



usCOMM-oc ijyr-'^-PTZ 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 



Abstract i 

Table of Contents ii 

List of Illustrations iv 

Introduction 1 

Purpose and Scope 1 

Methodology - 3 

Geology 7 

Introduction 7 

General Geology 8 

Map Preparation 10 

/ Rock and Mineral Resources 13 

Water Resources 28 

Introduction 28 

Surface Water Resources 28 

Groundwater Resources 4 

Wetlands 47 

Water Reclamation and Reuse 53 

Soils 56 

Introduction 56 

Soils and Planning 56 

Methodology 60 

Topography 65 

General 65 

County Topography 66 

Influence of Topography 68 



11 



TABLr: OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page 

i/ciimate 73 

General 7 3 

Climate in Alachua County 73 

Influence of Climate 75 

Vegetation 78 

Agriculture 73 

Forestry 83 

Wildlife Resources 97 

Introduction 97 

V7ildlife Habitats and Importance 97 

Determination of Habitat Suitability 100 

Areas of Environmental Concern 104 

Introduction 104 

Preservation and Conservation Programs 104 

Existing Land Use 109 

'Comparison of Natural Systems 112 

Methodology 112 

Composite Map 113 

Urban Fringe Consideration.s 116 

Conclusions 119 



l/' 



APPENDIX 1 1 



1 1 



APPENDIX 2 124 

APPENDIX 5 129 

BIBLIOGPAPIIY 133 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Maps Page 

1. Location Map - Alachua County, Florida 6 

2. General Geology 12 

3. General Rock and Mineral Resources 27 

4 . Surface Water Resources 39 

5. General Groundwater Recharge 44 

6. General Wetlands 49 

7 . General Soils 61 

8. General Soils Suitability for Conununity Development.. 64 

9. General Agricultural Suitability 87 

10. General Vegetation 96 

11. General Wildlife 103 

12. Significant Natural Areas 108 

13. General Land Use Ill 

14 . Composite Natural Resources 118 

Appendices 

1. Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control 
Rules; Chapter 17-3 Pollution of Waters; Criteria for 
Class III Waters 122 

2. A Representative List of Vegetation in North Central 
Florida 124 

3. A List of Selected Wildlife Species in Alachua County, 
Florida 129 

Figures 

1. Model of Lake Trophic Succession and Extinction 33 

2. Hypothetical Curve of Lake Eutrophication 35 



IV 



Tables Page 

1. Average Range of Selected Chemical Characteristics 

of Streams in Alachua County 31 

2. Trophic State of Lakes in Alachua County 37 

3 . Water Budget Summary 4 3 

4. Soil Associations in Alachua County 58 

5. Association Chart for Soils Suitability for Community 
Development 63 

6. General Slope Use Zoning 70 

7. Average Monthly Temperature and Rainfall for Alachua 
County 75 

8. Acreage and Value of Crops in Alachua County, 1974.... 80 

9. Agricultural Capability Classes of Soils 84 

10. Agricultural Capability Classes of Soils in Alachua 
County 85 

11. Acres of Commercial Forest Land by Forest Type 90 

12. Acres of Commercial Forest Land by Stocking Class 

of Growing Stock Trees 91 

13. Acres of Commercial Forest in Alachua County by Site 
Class Ratings 92 

14. Components of the General Wildlife Suitability Map.... 101 

15. Land Use - Intensity Comparison 110 



1 



1 



II 



NATURAL RESOURCE STUDY 



NATURAL RESOURCES STUDY 

FOR 
ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA 



INTRODUCTION 

General Scope and Purpose 

Residents of Florida depend on natural resources for many 
services such as water supply, flood control, purification 
of waste, recreation, esthetics, fish and game propagation. 
Moreover, if agricultural resources are included, then we depend 

upon this resource for our food supply. Too often in the 
past the spread of urban communities has resulted in the 
alteration of natural systems in preference to artificial 
systems which are often much more expensive in terms of time, 
money, energy and materials, and often with debatable success. 
A small but excellent example could be cited as the destruction 
of large shade trees in a development prior to constructing air 
conditioned homes. 

In addition, many times in the past, planning projects have 
been based on economic, engineering and other concepts that 
have considered natural or environmental processes as only in- 
cidental to the primary project. In the frequent conflicts 
between conservation and development, conservation has in- 
frequently won, not so much because decision makers pay no 
heed to environmental issues but because environmental comcepts 
are often complex and difficult to comprehend in their 
entirety and their long term abuses and problems are difficult 
to quantify and defend. 



-1- 



One result has been the destruction of irreplaceable resources 
and the creation of ecological imbalances with potential 
immediate and future consequences. Examples of such lack of 
environmental awareness in development projects would include 
the filling of wetlands thereby destroying important wildlife 
habitats and areas which formerly aided in controlling flood 
waters. As a result of earlier inadequacies planners have 
become increasingly aware that systematic analyses of the 
total environment and its processes are an essential part 
of the overall planning process and that efforts to maintain 
or improve environmental quality must be given their due 
weight in land use allocation decisions. This report provides 
one step toward filling that need. 

It is obvious then that provisions for human well being 
and the maintenance of a high standard of living depend in 
large part upon the effective utilization of our natural 
resources. For Alachua County, an evaluation of natural 
resources is an essential element in the overall planning 
concept when viewed in terms of its intimate relationship 
to the development of long range plans for managing land 
and water resources. This study represents an effort to 
compile basic data on natural systems in the county for 
input into the comprehensive land use planning process. 
The suitability maps contained herein are not land use 
maps but only depict natural systems. However, their 
inclusion into the comprehensive planning process, which 
serves to optimize the compatibility of different 
land uses , is essential in order to insure stable long- 
term productivity of the land. 



-2- 



Recently, interest in energy values or benefits of natural 
systems have become singularly important because of the 
almost certain limitation of energy, or at least the unavail- 
ability of cheap energy in future years. This limitation 
may have overwhelming significance to the quality of life 
as we know it in Florida. The conveniences we now er.joy 
and business activities now employed may not be possible, 
acceptable or practical in a steady state or declining period 
of energy availibility . This problem with energy strongly 
suggests that our land use policies, life styles, and industry 
must be ordered in a direction oriented toward the utilization 
of a minimum of supplied energy, therefore requiring maximijm 
use of our natural life support systems. This effort also 
lends support to land use planning since it serves to mandate 
land use activities compatible with natural systems. 

Methodology 

Because the interactions between man and his environment are 
numerous, subtle and complex, there are almost no simple 
solutions to problems involving natural resources. Due to 
the difficulty in envisioning these interrrelations , it was 
necessary to employ a systems or whole-picture approach for 
comparing, visualizing and evaluating the complex associations 
between the principal natural resources in the county. There- 
fore, an overlay technique, similar to that promulgated by 
McHarg (1969) , has been utilized in this report to compare 
and describe the county's geology, water, soils, vegetation, 
wildlife and other resources. This method involves a 
number of brief reports and a series of maps on 
individual resources prepared on clear iicctcte overlays. 



-3- 



i| 



thereby facilitating a visual comparison of systems which 
may be made by superimposing any or all of the maps. For 
purposes of reproduction, it was not possible to include 
acetate overlays with each document; however, the originals 
are available for inspection at the Council offices. 

For purposes of comparison, each map utilizes up to six 
categories of increasing pattern density or intensity in 
which the lightest or clear sections represent areas having 
the least environmental sensitivity (or areas most suited 
for development) and the darkest patterns represent .areas that 
are the most environmentally sensitive or have the highest 
relative natural values. These patterns only represent 
the relative sensitivity or suitability of each land use 
activity as it relates to that particular map theme. Be- 
cause of the large number of possible interactions between 
elements of each map, no attempt was made to either assign 
quantitative values to each category or to adjust the pattern 
intensity on any map to reflect the relative importance or 
value of one resource to any other. Therefore, each map 
illustrates the relative position of each resource element 
only in respect to the particular resource mapped. 

Despite the limitations imposed by the absence of quantitative 
data, the system of map overlays employed allows the comparison 
of a variety of resources and visually defines areas having 
significant limitations or suitability for growth. This 
comparison allows qualitative decisions to be made on 
general trends and intensities of land use projected for the 
County. 



-4- 



The maps themselves must be considered limited in detail and 
utilized only for general planning purposes. This is necessary 
not only because of the limitations imposed by map scale but 
because detailed information necessary for site evaluation was 
often not available at the time of writing. For examplem a 
modern soil survey tor Alachua County is essential for specific 
site planning. Until the current survey is completed general 
soils map available for the county must be employed. General 
information for specific sites, therefore, may be drawn from 
the information contained herein and utilized as a general 
guide for obtaining more specific information in order to 
accurately ascertain any limitations which may exist. 

This study represents a cooperative effort between the North 
Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Department 
of Community Development of the City of Gainesville. Because 
the areas of concentration and concern differ, the reader 
is referred to that study prepared by the Department of 
Community Development entitled Environmentally Sensitive Areas- 
1975 which addresses, in more detail, those aspects of the en- 
vironment and natural resources of particular concern to the 
Gainesville Urban Area. 



-5- 



Map No.1 




LOCATION MAP 

ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA 



■» C3^- 



GEOLOGY 

Introduction 

Beneath that relatively thin veneer of sediments lying at 
the earth's surface known collectively as soils, lies some 
8,000 miles of rock strata. Modern man relies heavily upon 
those few rock formations lying at or near the earths surface 
for many important resources essential for survival, growth 
and development. There are many facets which must be examined 
in a consideration of these resources. Not only do these rock 
formations provide the foundation upon which structures may 
be built but they often contain or are comprised of raw mate- 
rials which may be useful for creating a wide variety of pro- 
ducts. 

The structural characteristics of underlying rock strata in- 
fluence growth and development by providing a firm base upon 
which facilities may be constructed. Likewise their chemical 
composition and physical characteristics make them amenable 
to such sues as septic tank drain fields, aquifer recharge, 
etc. In terms of chemical constituents, rock formations often 
yield useful mineral products such as gypsum and clay as well 
as rock products including phosphates, limestone and marl. 

Many such geological products are found in Alachua County, some 
of which have been mined in the past and others which may be 
commercially valuable in the future. 

This section contains a general description of the geology of 
Alachua County, its rock formations and subsurface structure. 
Also included are the more important associated rock and mineral 
deposits with an evaluation of their economic attributes. Much 



-7- 



of the discussion on the character of rock formations is suirana- 
rized from a number of other publications which are noted in 
the bibliography. The reader is referred to those documents 
for more explicit discussion. 

General Geology 

In general, the rock formations lying within several hundred 
feet of the earth's surface may be described collectively as 
consolidated and semi-consolidated marine and non-marine de- 
posits of sand, clay, marl, limestone and dolomite (a mag- 
nesium rich limestone) . The individual rock formations dis- 
cussed in succeeding paragraphs will further describe these 
relatively "shallow" deposits in the order of bottom to top, 
or in this case, oldest to youngest. However, it should be 
noted that all formations described are not continuous in the 
subsurface beneath the County. The areal extent of those 
formations exposed at the earth's surface is depicted on Map #2. 

The Lake City limestone is the oldest formation from which 
supplies of fresh water are obtained. This formation is 
principally a dolomitic limestone which includes many beds of 
sulphur, fossilif erous limestone and seams of peat or lignite. 
The Lake City limestone approaches nearest the surface in 
southeastern Alachua County where it has been found lying ap- 
proximately 150 feet below mean sea level. It is overlain in 
the subsurface by the Avon Park limestone, a dense to porous 
dolomite with a few beds of limestone and is nearest the surface 
in the southwestern portion of the County. 

The limestone formations known collectively as the Ocala Group 
are usually considered as a unit because of their similarity 



-8- 



and are described as such in this report. The Ocala Group 
lies over the Avon Park limestone and is the oldest rock ex- 
posed at the surface within the County. The upper part of the 
Ocala Group is described as a soft coquina limestone with the 
lower portions consisting of hard and soft dolomitic limestone. 
The limestones of the Ocala Group have been mined for a number 
of years in the southern and western portions of the County 
where they are exposed at the surface. In this portion of the 
County a limestone plain has been formed which is characterized 
by solution features typical of Karst topography, i.e., sinkholes 
caverns, prairies, etc. 

The Ocala Group, Avon Park, and Lake City formations and some- 
times the overlying beds of the Hawthorne formation are considered 
together as the Floridan aquifer because of their similar ex- 
cellent porosity and permeability. The value of these formations 
for fresh water storage is described in the chapter entitled 
"Water Resources". 

The Suwannee limestone has been found to overlie the Ocala 
Group in the northwestern portion of the County. Due to their 
similarity, it is often difficult to distinguish between the 
Suwannee and Ocala Group except by characteristic fossil elements. 
The Suwannee reaches a maximum thickness of 30 to 50 feet and 
is only recognized at the surface by exposures of boulders. 

The Hawthorne formations overlie the Ocala Group and the 
Suwannee limestone and are exposed at the surface over much of 
northern and eastern Alachua County. The Hawthorne is a marine 
deposit consisting of thick beds of clay and sandy clay and 
containing beds of sandy phosphatic limestone. It reaches a 



-9- 



maximum thickness of 200 feet in the County and because 
its composition usually forms a gentle rolling surface. 

The Choctawhatchee formation lies beneath the surface in 
northeastern and eastern Alachua County and is exposed only 
in a few prairies or low areas where overlying sediments have 
been removed. Found in thicknesses of from 10 to 30 feet, the 
formation is comprised of a fossiliferous clay and marl with 
small amounts of phosphate pebbles. 

The Alachua formation forms low rolling hills over the Ocala 
Group in the southwestern corner of the County. This formation 
is primarily a terrestrial sand deposit which is often found 
interbedded with phosphate pebbles and sandy clays. Thicknesses 
range from 25 to 35 feet. The phosphate occurrences in this 
formation are significant and will be further discussed in this 
chapter. 

The youngest formation recognized in Alachua County, not in- 
cluding the thin layer of sands and soils which blanket the 
area, are the Pleistocene sand deposits. Several wave formed 
terraces consisting of marine sediments, which were deposited 
during the early glacial epoch when most of Florida was under 
water, comprise these older Pleistocene deposits. Consisting 
predominantly of unconsolidated sand with lesser amounts of 
clay, these sands vary from 20 to 4 5 feet thick over much of the 
eastern and central portions of the County. 

Geologic Map Preparation 

The general geology of the County as shown by Map #2 represents 
the approximate areal distribution of each rock formation that 



-10- 



would be exposed at the earths surface assuming the thin veneer 
of soil deposits were removed. For the purposes of this report 
it is necessary to assign relative values to each formation 
based on each element's suitability or sensitivity to a higher 
intensity of land use. The rating scheme is subjective in 
nature and is based upon a general evaluation of the overall 
limitation or sensitivity of each formation with regard to 
its value as a natural resource and/or its development potential. 

This determination was made basically as follows: Pleistocene 
sand deposits because of their generally good bearing capacity 
and excellent drainage capabilities are noted as having the 
least limitations or restrictions to intensive land use. 

The Alachua formation, although primarily a sand and gravel 

deposit, is often interbedded with sand, clays and pebbles. 

Because of the clays which might hinder development and because 

of the possibility economic value of phosphate deposits, this formatioi 

was classified as having relatively slight limitations to 

development. 

The Choctawhatchee formation was selected third because of its 
clayey nature, limited distribution, and location of exposures 
in the Stanley Prairie area of eastern Alachua County essen- 
tially confine its reported occurrence to wetlands . 

The Hawthorne formation was placed fourth in order not only 
because of its wide areal extent, but because of its high 
water table and clayey nature have often proved it unsatisfac- 
tory for septic tanks and may otherwise impose limitations to 
intensive development. 



-11- 




Map No. 2 
GENERAL GEOLOGY 
MAP 

FOR 

ALACHUA COUNTY 
FLORIDA 



I 



Pleistocene 
Sands 



Alachua 
Formation 



INCREASING 

SENSITIVITY 

TO 

DEVELOPMENT 



' Vhno-.n-°y£i9.' ' 



Choctawhatchee 
Formation 



I 




' ' ' I i' 'I III °*^"'" 

illliillilllilitl ''""'' 





NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



would be e 
of soil de 
it is nece 
based on e 
intensity 
nature an 
limitation 
its value 

This deter 
sand depos 
and excell 
least limi 

The Alachu 
deposit, i 
Because of 
of the pes 
was classi 
developmen 

The Chocta 
clayey nat 
in the Sta 
tially con 

The Hawthc 
because of 
water tabl 
tory for s 
intensive 



\ 



The limestone formations of the Ocala Group were assigned the 
highest degree of sensitivity of the five formations represented 
at the surface. This evaluation is based on the degree to which 
limestone at the surface may restrict construction, particularly 
underground utilities, on the value of the limestone as a natural 
resource, and most importantly on the potential afforded for 
pollution of the subsurface Floridan aquifer through this 
information. 

The foregoing discussion does not imply that areas with rela- 
tively high limitations should be barred to all construction 
and development, but rather that in many cases a greater 
degree of consideration and possibly extensive investment in 
material and energy would need to be expended to preclude 
potential problems and hazards to, or afforded by, natural 
systems and problems caused by these systems. Depth of soil 
overburden above each formation and soil characteristics are only 
two examples of where other extenuating geological factors can 
affect growth and development. 

Rock and Mineral Resources 

Rock and mineral resources are special from a conservation 
point of view in that they are non-renewable resources, i.e., 
once high grade deposits are depleted it will require in- 
creasing amounts of money and energy to obtain or refine new 
raw materials from remaining supplies. Because of the tre- 
mendous demands placed on our mineral resources by our indus- 
trial system, many of our proven mineral reserves can last no 
more than a few decades. Even the huge phosphate reserves of 
south Florida are recognized to have very finite limits within 
this magnitude of time. 



-13- 



Inasmuch as our entire economy depends upon a balanced input 
from all resources it is apparent that potential limitations 
imposed by deteriorating reserves of high quality, non- 
renewable resources are a key consideration in planning for 
the future. Therefore, an understanding of their central role 
in maintaining out way of life is critical to comprehensive 
planning activities. 

Certain rock and mineral deposits in Alachua County are note- 
worthy and significant as natural resources. The objective of 
this section is to describe their occurrence, potential for 
economic utilization and related development considerations. 
The deposits to be considered include limestone, phosphate, 
clay, sand, oil, and natural gas. 

Clay Deposits 

The State of Florida has been an active clay producer for many 
years. Until 1923, Florida produced more Fullers' earth type 
clay than any other state. 

By 1922 as many as 23 different companies were operating in 
Florida. Since that time the number of working clay opera- 
tions has decreased and in 1965 there were only two brick 
plants operating in Florida. However, the rapid increase in 
the population of Florida in the past decade has stimulated 
the building industry tremendously creating a market for ad- 
ditional materials. At the present time there are eight com- 
panies in Florida producing clay for a variety of products. 



-14- 



There are two basic types of clay which are important in Florida. 
Fullers' earth is a type of clay with little plasticity. Its 
properties as a natural active bleaching agent were utilized 
during the Middle Ages for removing grease and fat from woolen 
cloth, and later aided in refining of mineral and vegetable oils. 
In the modem day it is used to de-ink newsprint and as an additive 
to concrete, soaps, and insecticides, cosmetics, adhesives, ceramic 
glazes and manv more products . Koalin is another clay product 
important to Florida. Koalin is a high grade clay often called 
China clay. It has many uses in addition to the manufacturing 
of china and pottery. Its largest use is as a filler in paper, 
but it is also used in the rubber industry and in the manufacture 
of refractories. 

Clay is one of the common products of the decomposition of rocks. 
It is usually made up of a number of different minerals in vary- 
ing proportions and is often defined as a very fine grain, 
earthy material which becomes plastic (workable) when wet. 

Of importance to Florida are the clays utilized for common 
brick manufacture. These clays are usually of an impure, often 
sandy composition, have a medium degree of plasticity and 
vary in strength, color and other properties. These clays are 
widely distributed in Florida and appear to be the most common 
variety of clay found in Alachua County. 

O.G. Bell (1923) reports that clays in Alachua County are 
widespread but are usually of a sandy nature which in addition 
to other impurities often precludes their usefulness. Among 
the types of clay he describes are residual clay deposits attri- 
buted to the decomposition of the Ocala Group of limestones. 



-15- 



He reports these to be abundant in the eastern portion of the 
County and a number of deposits have been found to be suitable 
for the manufacture of common brick. Bell noted that at the 
time of writing in 1923 that this material was being mined and 
utilized in brick manufacture by the Campville Brick Company 
formerly located 1/2 mile north of Campville and that other 
similar operations were also being conducted elsewhere in the 
County. That author also cited the occurrence of many small 
but similar deposits of clays associated with the phosphate 
deposits of the Alachua formation of southwestern Alachua 
County. 

Bay and Munyan (1935) describe the presence of limited deposits 
of Fullers' earth type clay in several small areas of the County, 
These areas include one about one mile north of Micanopy on 
U.S. 41, as well as in the Devil's Millhopper and Alachua Sink. 
No evidence has been found in the literature to suggest that 
Fullers' earth deposits have been mined in the County. 

Apparently the quality and quantity of clay deposits in the 
County was not sufficient to warrant continued operations and 
at the present time no commercial use is made of this resource. 

Except for reports dealing with special type clays, little in- 
formation was compiled for Alachua County from 1934 until 1964 
when the Florida Geological Survey conducted a brief ceramic 
clay investigation for Alachua, Clay and Putnam Counties. In 
this study, preliminary work was done in the eastern part of 
Alachua County utilizing hand auger sampling and examination 
of cuts in old abandoned clay pits. All exposures found were 
reported to contain an excessive percentage of quartz sand. 



-16- 



This additional exploration was confined to the right-of-way 
of State Highway 26 west of Gainesville. These examinations 
extended approximately four and one-half miles west of 1-75. 

In this area, clay thicknesses varied from, two to twenty 
feet under overburden ranging from zero to twenty feet thick. 
As reported, only one hole displayed commercial potential, 
while the other samples contained an excessive amount of quartz 
sand. 

In general then, although Florida's Fullers' earth production 
was second highest in the nation in 1972, none of this material 
was produced in Alachua County. However, because of the ex- 
tent of the various clay deposits in the County there may be 
future potential for clay production contingent upon further 
exploration and refinement of methods to wash impurities from 
clays as they are removed from the earth. 

Limestone Resources 



The Ocala Group of limestones lends itself to mining because 
of its location at or near the land surface in western Alachua 
County. The topmost formation of that group has been differ- 
entiated as the Crystal River formation and can generally be 
described as a "soft, white to cream colored, chalky, coquina 
limestone" grading toward downward into alternating layers of 
"tan to brown, crystalline limestone and dolomitic limestone". 



Because of its varying composition, this limestone is not suit- 
able for building stone but is suitable for use in construction 
as crushed rock. The major limiting factor to limestone mining 
and utilization is the availability of inexpensive transportation. 



-17- 



Therefore, the product is usually mined near adequate roads or 
railway transportation to be economically competitive. Quarries 
in the western part of the County must concentrate along or 
near transportation routes for this reason. 

According to the Bureau of Mine's Mi nerals Yearbook , 1972, 
Alachua County has four quarries supplying crushed limestone 
and dolomite. Production in 1971 totaled 2,035,040 short 
tons for a value of $1,596,000 and in 1972 production totaled 
2,166,000 short tons for a value of $1,741,000. This repre- 
sents only about 4.3% of the State's total production by 
volume in 1972. 

Because of the large volume of naturally available limestone, 
Alachua County will probably continue to produce crushed lime- 
stone and dolomite for some years. As with abandoned phosphate 
mines, limestone quarries are not easily reclaimed and become 
both a nuisance and liability to owners. Reclamation is often 
possible to a limited extent by such measures as filling with 
non-putrescible waste, such as construction debris, or conver- 
sion of sites into managed recreational areas. 

Because of the nature and proliferation of limestone quarries, 
there are no simple remedial actions which can be taken to 
reduce their detrimental aspects. Therefore, their management 
and reclamation through the Currently proposed Alachua County 
Surface Mining and Land Reclamation Ordinance is appropriate 
and necessary for maintaining the environmental quality of 
such sites in the County. 



-18- 



Sand 



As evidenced by the preceding section on geology sand is one 
of the most abundant surface materials in the County. Although 
many areas have been mined in the past and new sites are utilized 
as demand requires, this sand remains a common variety, useful as 
fill material or to suit other general requirements. No specialty 
sands, such as those having consistent color, composition or 
grade size, used for glass manufacture and similar products re- 
quiring a high grade material, have been found within the Councy. 
Sand deposits in Alachua County are therefore useful for general 
purposes but apparently not significant in terms of economic 
potential. 

Oil and Gas Resources 

It appears that there has almost always been an interest in 
the possibility of producing oil and gas in Florida. Since 
the establishment of the Florida Geological Survey in 1907, 
attempts have been made to record details of all exploratory 
drilling and to gather historical data on previous explora- 
tions wherever possible. In June, 1945, the Florida Legisla- 
ture enacted a law regulating the drilling of oil and gas. 
The law required that information collected be kept on file 
with the Florida Geological Survey. This promoted more ac- 
curate data acquisition as well as the creation of a filing 
system to be used for future reference and utilization in 
exploration surveys. 

Wells drilled prior to 1939 were based largely on general 
geologic evidence or hunches, such as topographic and physio- 
graphic resemblance to oil fields located in other areas. 



-19- 



From 1940 to the present the exploration of oil and gas has 
been rather extensively conducted by the major oil companies. 
Although wells have been drilled all over Florida, including 
a number in Alachua County, no more than traces of oil were 
ever found in this County. 

During 1972, nine oil fields were producing in Florida. Six 
of these are located in the Sunnyland limestone of Collier, 
Hendry and Lee Counties. The other three are located in 
Santa Rosa County. At the present time, although explorations 
are continually being carried out in this State, there appears 
to be little evidence to suggest that oil or gas reserves will 
be found beneath Alachua County. 

Phosphate Resources 

Phosphate deposits of northern Florida consist primarily of 
marine phosphatic sedimentary rocks made up of clays, sand, 
dolomite and a variety of alterations of this material formed 
by weathering processes. The phosphate-bearing rocks and 
minerals of Florida have been classified into four very general 
categories: land pebble, river pebble, hard rock and soft 
rock. Of these, only the land pebble, or granular phosphate, 
is being mined in Florida. River pebble or stream placer de- 
posits are relatively unimportant in this area and "soft rock" 
deposits (clayey sands with phosphate particles) are normally 
associated with hard rock deposits and are not differentiated 
in this discussion. Due to differences in occurrence and com- 
position, the two categories, hard rock phosphates and pebble 
phosphates, are considered individually. 



-20- 



Hard Rock Phosphate Deposits 

Hard rock phosphate was apparently first identified in Florida 
and utilized on a local scale in Hawthorne in 1883 after it 
was discovered that sandstone being quarried locally contained 
considerable amounts of phosphate. In 1888, phosphate was dis- 
covered in v\7hat is now part of the hard rock phosphate district 
near Dunnellon in Marion County. Following the discovery of 
these extensive hard rock phosphate deposits in Marion County, 
commercial mining developed rapidly until 1907 when the pro- 
duction of hard rock phosphate in north central Florida reached 
a peak. At that time, there were 45 companies producing hard 
rock phosphate in central and north central Florida. By 1909, 
there were only 20 companies operating in 74 locations, 22 of 
which were in Alachua County. The hard rock field was generally 
closed during World War I except for limited output by one com- 
pany. After the war, production was again resumed on a scaled 
down basis and declined until 1966, when all hard rock phosphate 
production in Florida ceased. 

The hard rock phsophate deposits of Florida are roughly confined 
to a north to south trending linear belt along the west side of 
the peninsula. This concentration is largely controlled by the 
Ocala Uplift. The Ocala Uplift is an elongated anticlinal fold 
or arch stretching some 200 m.iles long and 70 miles wide. The 
axis lies a few miles west of Alachua County. The hard rock 
phosphate concentration occurs principally along the central 
portion of this uplift in an area 100 miles long and 30 miles 
wide covering a total area of some 1,500 square miles. These 
hard rock deposits are found in 15 counties including Alachua, 
Columbia, Gilchrist, Levy and Suwannee in this region. 



-21- 



The deposits are highly irregular in shape and size and range 
from several feet to over 100 feet in thickness. In the 
Newberry area of western Alachua County the maximum thickness 
is about 50 feet and the average less than 30 feet. It is 
reported that gray, phosphatic, clayey sand, as much as 80 
feet thick, covers most hard rock deposits. However, it is 
noticeably absent in some areas particularly between Newberry 
and High Springs where much of this cover material has been 
eroded away. 

The geology of the hard rock deposits is very complex. These 
deposits have been described as irregular mixtures of quartz, 
sand, chert, clay mineral and carbonate f lourapatite, princi- 
pally in the form of cellophane (Caj-F (PO , ) -. ) , an amphorous, 
phosphate-rich mineral. Most investigators agree that, in 
general, hard rock phosphate deposits correspond to the Alachua 
formation described in earlier sections of this report. There- 
fore, hard rock deposits as indicated in Map #3 are represented 
as conforming to the areal extent of the Alachua formation in 
southwestern Alachua County. 

In the 1890 's and early 1900 's hard rock phosphate production 
flourished because, with naturally occurring high phosphate 
percentages, it was ideal for export as washed and screened 
rock. As benefication techniques were improved for the much 
larger deposits of land pebble phosphate, hard rock production 
declined. 

Renewed activity in hard rock phosphate deposits depends upon 
several factors which include: 



-22- 



1) Depletion of present premium grades (74% BPL and 
above) and quantities of land pebble deposits. 

2) Reduced transportation costs. 

3) Minimum competition from other sources of phosphates. 

In summary, one area between Newberry and High Springs is con- 
sidered to have excellent prospecting potential. Should such 
factors as outlined above become satisfied, prospecting will 
become necessary to accurately assess the distribution, volume 
and quantity of hard rock deposits before their economic poten- 
tial can be fully appreciated. However, such potential is 
not readily forseeable. 

Land Pebble Phosphate Deposits 

Most of the phosphate produced in Florida comes from the Bone 
Valley Field in Polk and Hillsborough Counties. These rich 
phosphorite (phosphatic, clayey sand) beds of south Florida 
are termed "land pebble" phosphate deposits. This term has 
also been applied to the rich phosphate beds of the Hawthorne 
formation of Florida. 

In Alachua County, pebbles and grains of phosphate minerals 
occur throughout the sediments of the Hawthorne formation and 
also occur as concentrations in lenses or other irregular 
bodies. Pirkle (1957) reported on important occurrences of 
pebble phosphate in the upper part of the Hawthorne formation 
in Alachua County. This zone of phosphatic materials varies 
in thickness from a few feet to 30 or 40 feet and consists 
largely of pebbles and grains of phosphate embedded with 
varying combinations of sand, clay and carbonate materials. 



1.0 percent BPL (Bone Phosphate of Lime or tricalcium 

phosphate) equals 0.458 percent P^Oj., or BPL equals PoO^- 
times 2.185. ^ ^ "^ ^ 

-23- 



These sediments are covered by sand and clay sands up to 4 5 
feet thick. 

Two areas of heavy concentrations have been indentified by 
Pirkle (1957) . The first occurs in an area of approximately 
50 square miles in the plateau area just north and northeast 
of Gainesville and the second south of State Road 2 betv/een 
the towns of Grove Park and Hawthorne. In addition, that 
investigator reports that pebble phosphates underlie extensive 
areas of the County. This tends to support Mansfield's (1942) 
outline of a more extensive distribution of pebble phosphates 
in eastern Alachua County as shown on Map #3 and suggests the 
need for more extensive exploration to more accurately assess 
the areal extent of the land pebble deposits. 

The grade of phosphates sampled by investigators in core dril- 
lings ranges from 62.5% of 65.4% BPL. Pirkle (1954) estimated 
that phosphate reserves in Alachua County consist of a minimum 
of 30 to 50 million tons of recoverable phosphate whose grade 
will exceed 50% BPL. At the time of writing, it was indicated 
that the land pebble phosphate deposits in the County were not 
of sufficiently high grade to be mined. However, information 
is available indicating that at least one company intends to 
mine similar pebble phosphate deposits in the near future in 
Bradford County suggesting that there exists a real potential 
for future mining in Alachua County. 

In any event, phosphate producers must eventually mine lower 
grade material because it is a non-renewable resource, and 
although there is a great quantity of low grade phosphate in 
the Bone Valley District there is also a tremendous potential 
for the development of additional phosphate deposits in creas 
of north central Florida. Pebble phosphate is also known in 
Hamilton, Bradford, Clay and other counties. 



-24- 



In summary, pebble phosphates at the top of the Hawthorne 
formation in the plateau area of Alachua County do add signi- 
ficant amounts to the low grade phosphate reserves of Florida 
and cannot be overlooked. Therefore, the potential for econom- 
ic development of phosphate reserves in the future, . particularly 
in light of rising population and increased demand for food 
production, is a reality which must be considered by local 
planners. 

Inasmuch as phosphate is obtained by strip mining techniques, 
land reclamation and management techniques will play an in- 
creasingly important part in the environmental control aspects 
of mining regulations. Therefore, local governments and plan- 
ning agencies will be called on to assess the com.patibility of 
phosphate mining with growth and land development in north 
central Florida. 

Evidence of the impacts caused by past phosphate mines in 
Alachua County are still evident in the western portions of 
the County. Some of these areas are owned by farmers, and others 
by corporations. Many consider the abandoned mines a visual 
liability. It is reported that some of these areas could be 
converted to valuable recreational sites. Many mined facili- 
ties in future years may be directed, through the proposed 
Alachua County Surface Mining and Land Reclamation Ordinance, 
to preserve the environmental integrity of such areas for the 
benefit of future users and thereby enhance the environmental 
state of the County. 



-25- 



Rock and Mineral Resources Map Preparation 

The resources map noted as Map #3 in the text is included to 
illustrate the general distribution of rock and mineral re- 
sources in the County. However, because of its general nature 
and the difficulty involved in making qualitative evaluations 
necessary to justify relative values based upon economic po- 
tential this map is not used as an overlay in developing the 
composite map of natural resources. 



-26- 




lEVT CO. 



Map No. 3 
GENERAL ROCK 

AND MINERAL 
RESOURCES MAP 

FOR 

ALACHUA COUNTY 

FLORIDA 



Pebble 

Phosphate 

District 



Known 
Land 
Pebble 
Phosphate 



Limestone 
District 





4. R 1M 



NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



WATER RESOURCES 



Introduction 



Although the basic amount of v;ater in Florida remains relatively 
unchanged, population growth and urban and industrial 
development continue to put increasing demands on the available 
supply. Serious water shortages in terms of the entire state 
appear unlikely, however, it is certain that in future years 
water will not be available in sufficient quantities in each 
basin or hydrologic area to fully meet the potential demands 
that will be placed on this resource. Therefore an analysis 
of this resource has become a vital function of natural resource 
planning . 

Water is a renewable resource, or more accurately, a recyclable 
resource. It is neither created nor destroyed through its use 
its movement through the hydrologic cycle, but rather only its 
character and location are changed. The hydrologic problem 
then, is fundamentally one of water accounting so that a bal- 
ance of water quality and quantity may be maintained in natural 
systems. 

Surface Water Resources 

From Map #4 it may be seen that Alachua County is divided 
between two major drainage basins. The southeast portion of 
the county lies in the St. Johns River Basin. Drainage 
travels through the smaller Orange Creek Basin in the County 
and ultimately through the St. Johns River to the Atlantic 
Ocean. To the north and northwest the Santa Fe River Basin 
is part of the larger drainage system, known as the Suwannee 
River Basin which ultimately drains to the Gulf of Mexico. 



-28- 



Santa Fe River Basin 

• 

The Santa Fe River forms the entire northern boundary of 
Alachua County and drains an area extending three to fifteen 
miles south of the river. The Santa Fe River Basin which 
covers about 1,440 square miles has its headwaters in Santa 
Fe Lake in northeastern Alachua County. Twenty-two percent 
of this basin, or about 300 square miles, is in Alachua 
County. The hydrology of this basin is very complex. The 
upper reaches of the river have flow characteristics showing 
complete dependence on surface waters. However, dovmstream 
of Oleno State Park numerous springs feed the river from 
porous limestones at or near the surface indicating a close 
interrelationship between ground and surface water sources. 

Orange Creek Basin 

The Orange Creek drainage basin is only a small part of the 
much larger St. Johns River Basin. It drains through the 
Oklawaha River into the St. Johns River then to the Atlantic 
Ocean. The upper two-thirds of the Orange Creek Basin, 
approximately 34 square miles, is located within Alachua 
County. In Alachua County, Hatchet and Little Hatchet Creeks 
form the headv;aters of this basin. 



Lakes 



There are a total of 119 lakes in Alachua County. The 44 
named lakes have a combined area of 4 5,711 acres and the 
7 5 unnamed lakes represent 3,24 3 acres for a total lake 
surface area of approximately 7 6.4 square miles. Although 
lakes are important for recreational activities in the County , 
they are unimportant as sources of public water supply. A 



-29- 



tabulation of the names and locations of all lakes may be 
found in the Water and Sewer Development Plan for Alachua 
County . 

It is apparent from Map #4 that the lakes of Alachua County 
are not uniformly distributed. The majority of the lakes are 
situated in the eastern half of the county with the four 
major lakes located in the eastern third. 

The number and diversity of lakes in Alachua County offer 
abundant opportunities for fishing, boating and various 
water contact sports to many residents and out of state 
visitors throughout the year. Therefore, the conservation 
of this fresh water resource .is important to the economy 
as well as to the quality of life in the County. 

Surface Water Quality 

All waters in Alachua County have been classified as Class 
III - Recreation - Propagation and Management of Fish and 
Wildlife by the Florida Department of Environmental Regula- 
tion. As indicated by the classification, water uses affect- 
ing any of the surface water bodies in Alachua County must 
not impair the functions of the water body beyond limitations 
required for that classification. The requirements for 
Class III waters are reproduced from. Chapter 17-3 of the 
Rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation in Appen- 
dix 1 . 

Because of their exposure to climatic changes and other 
natural systems, surface waters generally tend to vary in 
quality more than ground waters. In general, surface waters 
tend to be softer, i.e., contain fewer elements which 



-30- 



contribute to hardness. In addition, other parameters vary 
considerably, such as temperature which varies with season, 
depth and flow characteristics of the water body, pK which 
varies with organic content, dissolved oxygen, iron, and 
sulphates, and aquatic life forms. Some ranges of average 
stream chemical characteristics are noted in Table 1 below. 



TABLE 1 
AVERAGE RANGE OF SELECTED CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS 

OF STREAMS IN ALACHUA COUNTY 

Parameter Range 

Temperature 69** to 76° F 

Iron .23 to 1.9 mg/1 

Calcium , 3.3 to 7.4 mg/1 

Magnesium. 1.0 to 2.8 mg/1 

Sodium 5.1 to 6.5 mg/1 

Potassium 0.0 to 1.5 mg/1 

Bicarbonate 4 to 100 mg/1 

Sulphate 1.5 to 3 6 mg/1 

Chloride 7.1 to 12 mg/1 

Carbonate Hardness 16 to 3 mg/1 

pH 5.4 to 7.2 

Color 80 to 275 JTU 



Source: Adapted from Report of Investi- 
gations #35, Florida Bureau of 
Geology, p. 78-87. 



-31- 



From the preceding chart it appears that color is the most 
objectionable characteristic of streams in Alachua County. 
High color is also common to many lakes where decaying organic 
material occurs in appreciable quantities within or adjacent 
to the water body. Iron content may be another objectionable 
characteristic because it often contributes to the taste and 
color of surface waters. Other chemical characteristics vary 
considerably and depend upon a variety of stream conditions. 
In summary, however, with the exception of incidences of pollu- 
tion in streams, surface water quality in the County is 
generally good. 

Although water quality in lakes of Alachua County would gen- 
erally fall within the chemical parameters outlined for streams, 
because of their limited circulation, depth and other physical 
attributes, the lakes are more susceptible to other natural proc- 
esses which make them more vulnerable to deterioration and 
slower to recover than flowing water bodies . The follow- 
ing discussion summarizes some of the more important aspects 
of lake water quality. 

Eutrophication 

Over the course of many years, it is normal for lakes to 
become gradually enriched with nutrients through natural 
processes then, subsequently, through stages of deteriorating 
quality, gradually to fill in to become swamps and eventually 
dry land. In recent years increased urbanization and in- 
tense agricultural land uses have tremendously increased 
nutrient loads to lakes. This enrichment has accelerated 
the "aging" of surface water bodies, thereby shortening the 
lives of lakes and generally impairing water quality. Due 
to the mild climate in Florida, surface waters, especially 



-32- 



lakes / are particularly susceptible to the effects of a 

more intensive use of the land and accelerated aging processes. 

This process of natural deterioration or aging of lakes is 
known as eutrophication and generally involves the response 
of a lake to nutrient enrichment. This response is reflected 
by a lake's trophic state (eutrophic condition) which is de- 
fined by a variety of physical, chemical and biological 
parameters. 

The process by which a lake becomes enriched in nutrients and 
subsequently nasses through stages of deteriorating water quality 
is shown in Figure 1 where trophic states are indicated as 
a function of time and vegetative production. 

FIGURE 1 
MODEL OF LAKE TROPHIC SUCCESSION AND EXTINCTION 



^EUTROPHY 


\ / CLIMAX 


/ 


V XbOG FOREST 


1 MESOTROPHY 


\ / 


J 


Va IS./'^^IAT 


^ OLIGOTROPHY 


SFNESCFNCF 



TIME 



Source: Shannon, 1975. 



-33- 



There are several terms which define trophic stages or lake 
conditions. These are defined in general terms as follows: 

1) Oligotrophic : The youngest period or first stage in the 
life of a lake characterized by generally high water 
quality, good clarity, low concentration of plant nutrients 
and a small but diverse faunal population. 

2) Mesotrophic: An intermediate lake stage lying between 
oligotrophic and eutrophic and defined by increasing 
nutrient levels and biological productivity. 

3) Eutrophic: The third stage in the deterioration process 
after mesotrophic, typified by a water bodv rich in 
nutrients, large quantities of algae and aquatic weed 
species, low water transparency and large organic deposits. 

4) Hypereutrophic : A lake condition in vjhich aquatic produc- 
tivity is at its highest levels, containing highest 
nutrient levels, and increasing amounts of sedim.enta- 
tion. 

5) Senescent: Refers to the last stage of a lake prior to 
its total loss of identity as a water body. Sedimenta- 
tion nearly complete, a generally high oxygen deficit 
and weed choked . 

6) Dystrophic: A lake exhibiting high organic (brovmish) 
color with much dissolved humic matter. Does not relate 
to trophic state . 

Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between biological pro- 
ductivity and the relative age of a lake. It may be seen that 
during the initial life stages of the lake (oligotrohpic and 



-34- 



and mesotrophic stages) there is only a gradual increase in 
productivity. As the lake enters the eutrophic stage the 
rate of biological productivity increases tremendously in a 
short period of time. Of special concern is the lake's rela- 
tively rapid change toward senescence and eventual extinction 
upon the addition of artificial nutrients as illustrated in 
Figure 2. This then is the essence of the problem associated 
with "cultural" pollutants. And because fresh v:ater is vital 
to the total environment as well as to the provision of recrea- 
tional and asthetic benefits, lake trophic status is signifi- 
cant to the total quality of life. 

FIGURE 2 
HYPOTHETICAL CURVE OF LAKE EUTROPHICATION 




TIME 



Source: Shannon, 1975. 



-35- 



Table 2 suinmarizes the location and basic trophic state of 
33 of the larger lakes in Alachua County. Lakes noted are 
numbered on Map # 4 . 

As evident from Table 2, Santa Fe Lake, Little Santa Fe Lake 
and Lake Altho represent the few oligotrophic lakes in Ala- 
chua County. Of particular concern are those lakes classed 
as either eutrophic or senescent. Newnans, Orange and Loch- 
loosa Lakes, all in the Orange Creek Drainage Basin, show 
considerable evidence of eutrophication and are significant 
in that they represent not only the largest lakes in Alachua 
County but also those which have some of the greatest recrea- 
tional and wildlife values. Because of the importance of 
these lakes to the overall quality of life in Alachua County, 
including not only their economic and recreation potential 
but also their value as vjildlife habitats and esthetic open 
spaces, all perform an important function to those living or 
visiting Alachua County. Therefore, conservation of these 
water resources is essential if they are to remain in a useful 
condition. 

It has been shown that in many cases the process of eutrophi- 
cation may be reduced, arrested and possibly even reversed 
with adequate management techniques. In instances where the 
deterioration of a lake is considered to be a significant 
loss, a number of state and local agencies can be directed 
to devise, through cooperative planning, a program to fully 
assess the quality and character of the water body. Recom- 
mendations could then be made to deal specifically with remedial 
actions to retard lake deterioration. An ongoing program 
for collecting data on the trophic state of lakes in Alachua 
County, such as that of the Alachua County Pollution Control 
Board, should be encouraged. Such information coupled with 



-36- 



Q) 

a 

Eh 



0) 


f^ 00 ro CM O 


m 


•;»• 00 o m "T 


VO CO O 00 ^ vo 


CM r~ 00 m CM ro 


0) S-l 


<-i 00 iH cr> in 


CM 


i-H CTi CN CN n 


o in iH ro • 


• (N rH 


^ u 


r^ r-i 






O CN O 




< < 








rH M fH 





4-> 

a 

Q 







>< 








Eh 








2 






(i4 


D 






O O 








U 






W 








Eh 


< 






<: D 




fN 


EH 


u 






W 


K 






U 


a 




cq 


H 


< 




< 


K 






H 


CU 


2 






O 


H 






« 








Eh 










» 


c 






a 



•H 
+J 
ftJ 

u 





(0 
2 



0) 

e 

2 







u 


U U 








2J 


W u o w 




y u u o 


u u u u 


1 


1 U 1 1 


« u 


o o o o s 


s o w s s 


Q 


Uj W Q K Q Q 


S W K W tl ^ 



in ID in 
• • • 

00 vD •^ ■^ n 



in in 

CNJ ro n n "^ 



in 

m n rH fNJ CN M 
CM 



in 



cH rO CM CN CN CM 







M-( 


















<u 



















(0 


(0 










fd OJ 






rH (1) 






-P 









O 






Q) 




iJ rH 






rH rH 




.— ^ 


U 






M 


>H 




^—^ 


c 


td >i >. H 


(U 


Q) 


O; -H GJ rH 




<U rH^ 


rO 






rH 


iH 




<T\ 


^ 


to 4J 


-P to -H 


rH 


rH 


H > fH -H 




W— CM 


Q^ 






Q) 


Q) 




Q) — 


— 


c 


C C > 


rH 


rH 


H to H to > 




— 








•■^ 


«:-• 




C 


o x: 


3 


P td to 


•H 


•H 


•H QJ -H D CU to 




U Q) 


iH 












^1 GJ .H 4-> 


rH 


c o 


> 


> 


> C > arH <D 




•H ^ QJ T3 


fO 






14-1 


»4-l 




a: 


*■' > 


x: u 


u ^ c 


to 


to 


to -H to E rH C 




OJ (0 ^ rH 


u 














x: td 


rd 


u 


d) -H 


<u 


0) 


Q) Id QJ Id -H -H 




2 .H to (d 


-p 












■P nH 


G> n: 


*H tw 2 fd 


c: 


c 


c o c cj > fd 




r-\ S 


c 


>i 




-P 


-p 


0) 


3j 


M 


^ 


o 


•H 


•H 


■H -H CO O 




^ m 


(U 


4-> 




to 


to 


C 


«d y-i 


(d ^ 




U-l 


fd 


td 


Id 14-1 fd • <u 




^4-1 4-1 


u 


C 




Q) 


(d 


^^ 


K O -H *+-! -P 


-P IM 


tj 


o 


O O tM C '4-1 









D 




5 


OJ 









^^ 


>H 






•H 




•^•^ 


x: 







jc ;c: x: M-i j:: 


MH JC 


fd 


Id x: 


IH 


M-l 


u-i x: x:^ ni 




-P +J +J 4-» 


-p 


u 




-p 


-P 


4-> 


-P 


-P 


4J aa-p -p 








-P +J O -P 




^ V^ W W 


^ 






d 


a 


is 


^ 


D 


to 


p to 






a a CO 




Q) »0 















n3 


Ui 


W 


fd w u td 


m 


U4 


S O ''SO 
2 02 C/3 .D CO S 

c 


•H 




2 2 S W 


2 






w 


ty) 


M-i 


en w 


w w 


W 01 


t/3 C/3 W 


2 


C/3 




0) 




























t^ 














Q) 












0> 




fO T( 














tjy 












oi 




-JJ c 


T) 












c 
















C 


C 








M 




fd 




XJ 








0) g 




«, "1 '^ 







c x: 


0) 


(U 


M 




c fd 


1 


( 




D> ^1 




Q) 0) 


cu 




■H 


-p 


-p 


c 


O 


Q) 


to 


^ 






rO < 




[L. >, 






CO 


Q) 


(« 


M 


TJ 


<\) 73 


;u 


td-T 






C -D TJ 




dJ U 


M 




fd XJ 


^ 





0) Q) 


i-:i ^ 





Q) Ai a 






•H (U to OJ 


c 


•^ rH 


<D 




CQ 


fO 


>-i x: .H E 





H fH 


D^-p tdl 




4J 


Id G C d) U B 


•H 


■n -P ^ j:: 


-P 






N 


rd 


-p 


-P (d 


CO a^<--\ jz 


c td c: 


Q) 


D 


M fd Id o; u fd td 


CO 


C +J O -P 







^ 


•H 


<u 


5 -P C 


CO tT> 


•H U 


td H 5 


N 





Q +j c > -H q; c 


(0 


(0 -H -H .H 







Q) rH 


rH 


(d 


•H C 


O 0) 


■P O 


i-i Id 0) 


'H 


>H 


O C -H H fH c 


CQ 


w h^i K < 


U 




Q) 


U 


UKi-qD2'DC0hqOC^2| 


f>-l 


Eh 


0) S D P3 < U D 










M 














1 






u 


0) 








O 




















(d 


b 








0) 






















03 








CP 




















3 


-P 








c 




















W 


C 


"-I OJ ro ■^ 


in 




rfl 


KO 


r- 


00 


cr> o 


rH CM 


m "^ 


in w r^ 


00 


<y« 


o fH CN fo ■^ in 


fO 








M 








f-{ 


rH rH 


.H rH 


rH rH rH 


rH 


rH 


O CM CN CM CM CM CN 


C/) 








O 




















2 



-37- 



(N 



0) 

C 
•H 
+J 

C 

o 
u 

rsi 

u 

CQ 
< 

Eh 



Q) 

Eh 



w 






(d Q) 


fH <N ^ 1J3 


CTi (N VO 


0) M 


n in 


•'a' CN 


u u 


CN 




< <i 







H 0) 

Q G 
•H 



6 
(d 



XI 

g 



U U U 

S WOO 
I I I I u u 

Q2WQQWWS 



in in 
\ in rH CN iH CM in CN 







CP 








M 






^-v 


0) 






r- (i) 


0) >. X} 


>i 




CN rH 


-H 4-> >i P 


Cu 




^^.H 


fH C a rrJ 







■H 


•H 3 S 


>i c 




(1) > 


> c 


a (d 




>: W 


m u td (U 


u 




fO OJ 


(u u a: 


C -H 




^ c 


c: M-i -H (d 


(d S 




•H 


•H S 1^ 


u 


c 


IM fO 


fd 


•H IW 





o 


O -P M-l M-l 


S 


•H 




>-i O 




■p 


x: m 


iw fd 


u-i x: 


a 


-P 


04 +J -P 


O -P 


u 


p 


(0 (0 


3 





s 


IS Is: 0) (U 


§ 


^^1 


w s 


CO W IS S 

c 




S CO 






C TJ 


rd 






Tl C 


M 






(d rH G O 


M 




^ T) -C (U CU 


tJi-H 




<U Q) 


(d e cu 


M u 




6 e 


Q.^ -P 


<U (d 



(dfdfdOJCnCjau 
CCCPCJ-iPW 
CCidfdoafd;^ 
DDt^lSK^lXlSEH 



vDr-cocTiOi— tcNn 
CNCNCNrgroromm 















^ 














Q) 














+J 














fd 














5 














c 














•H 














^ 





























iH 























o 






O 








•H 








u 






J3 






O 


•H 







CU 






•H 


j:3 


•H 









u 


c 


a 


x: 


u 


M 


-P 


•H 


fd 





p^ 


•H 


-P 


C 


x: 


Cn 


u 





JH 


P 


<L) 


a 


M 


4J 


^ 


a 


0) 


U 











+j 





M 


W 


»H 




en 





^ 


<u 


0) 


-p 


pA-H 


•H 


w 


-p 


a 


C 


M 


CT« 


rH 


(U 


:3 


>i 


(U 


>i 


•H 





g 


Q) 


^ 


w 


'd 


x: 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


o 




r - 




CO 


Q 


u 


ai 














cu 














>i 














tH 














a) 














M 














«0 














tJ 















C7> 



(d 



•H 

o 

N 

0) 

u 



O 

O 



-38- 




MapNo.4 

SURFACE WATER 
RESOURCES MAP 

FOR 

ALACHUA COUNTY 

FLORIDA 



Basin Divide 



(see Table 2 For Lake Names 
and Character) 




OBTHN 




NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



<N 



0) 
Eh 



«0 

0) 

u 
< 



H ( 

-P ( 

ft f 

Q i 



O 
■H 
4J 
(0 
U 
O 



0) 

p 
c 

•H 
4-> 

o 
u 

u 
►J 

CQ 

< 



(U 



reports prepared by other agencies could be incorporated into 
general planning activities providing for the overall develop- 
ment and conservation of the County's surface water resources. 

Groundwater Resources 

Groundwater is probably the single most important natural 
resource available to the citizens of Alachua County. Al- 
though its highest function is as a source of potable water, 
it also serves to maintain water levels in lakes and streams. 
Where groundwater discharges at ground surface through springs, 
recreational sites also become possible. 

Potable water supplies come from two major sources: the 
Floridan aquifer and what may be termed the upper or secon- 
dary aquifers. The upper aquifers are those water containing 
rock or sand formations lying physically above the limestones 
of the Floridan aquifer. These aquifers usually consist of 
a water table aquifer found close to land surface in sur- 
ficial sand or soil deposits and other secondary aquifers 
often found in thin layers of limestone or other porous 
material lying between the water table aquifer and the Flori- 
dan aquifer below. 

The water table aquifer is usually comprised of sands of the 
Pleistocene terrace deposits and the sand and limestone layers 
at the top of the Hawthorne formation. The water table aquifer 
is absent in a 3 00 square mile area in southwestern Alachua 
County where the limestones of the Floridan aquifer are very 
close to the surface. 

Secondary aquifers are often artesian, i.e., the water within 
is under pressure and sometimes flows through wells at land 



-40- 



surface. They occur principally in the limestone or sand 
layers in the lower part of the Hawthorne formation and, in 
northeastern Alachua County, in the Choctawa tehee formation. 
Probably more wells in Alachua County tap the secondary 
artesian aquifers for potable water supplies than any other 
source. However, in most areas of Alachua County, neither 
the water table aquifer nor the secondary aquifers yield 
sufficient water for large supplies. 

The Ocala Group of limestones and possibly the lower portion 
of the Hawthorne formation make up the Floridan aquifer 
throughout the region. It is one of the most productive 
and extensive groundwater bearing formations in the United 
States and easily transmits and stores more water than any 
other aquifer in north central Florida. In the western and 
southwestern portions of Alachua County where there is no 
confining layer, the aquifer is under water table conditions. 
In the rest of the County the Floridan aquifer is under 
artesian conditions and will flow through a well at the 
earth's surface if the artesian or piezometric pressure 
level exceeds the ground surface elevation. The Floridan 
aquifer is recharged by waters slov/ly flowing down through 
overlying and confining beds of the Hawthorne formation or 
by percolating directly into the aquifer where no confining 
beds are present such as in southwestern Alachua County. 
Although the entire County is considered to be an area of 
recharge, of special interest are areas of sinkhole occurrence 
in the county such as Haile Sink at the base of Hogtown Creek 
and Alachua Sink in Paynes Prairie. The 400 square mile 
area in the southwestern portion of the County is an area 
where the highest recharge occurs because of the general 
absence of significant overlying material. 



-41- 



Because of the importance of this resource the recharge 
capabilities of the County must be considered during the 
land use planning process to ensure the compatibility of 
future land uses with recharge potential. From Map #5 it 
may be observed that the highest recharge in the County 
occurs in areas where the Ocala limestones are nearest the 
surface and in sinkholes discharging directly into the 
Floridan aquifer. Areas with poorest recharge potential 
correspond to the areal extent of the Hav.'thorne formation 
which because of its clayey nature almost precludes the 
flow of water dov;n to the aquifer. Intermediate recharge 
potential is exhibited in those areas having only a thin 
layer of permeable overburden over the Ocala limestones 
such as that area covered by sands of the Alachua formation. 

Water Budget 

A very general water budget for Alachua County has been 
compiled from data contained in the Report of Investiga- 
tions #35 of the Florida Bureau of Geology and a summary 
of the calculations presented in Table 3. It is apparent 
that approximately 190 MGD (million gallons per day) of 
water underlies and flows through Alachua County over and 
above that which is utilized through industry, agricultural 
and domestic consumption. These figures / however, are only 
approximations due to the limitations imposed by available 
data and are only intended to show the approximate magnitude 
of water resources in the County. Compared to the 2 2 MGD 
currently used in the County, the remaining amount of water 
for possible utilization in terms of volume is appreciable. 
Although not inexhaustable, the general magnitude of v/ater 
volume appears to offer few limitations except as might be 
imposed on a large industry such as phosphate mining. In 



-42- 



TABLE 3 



WATER BUDGET SUMMARY 



Water in MGD 



Water Gain 

Rainfall 

Subsurface Inflow 
Surface or Stream Inflow 

Water Loss 

Evapotranspiration 

Surface Outflow 
Santa Fe Basin 
Orange Creek Basin 
SW Area of County 

Total Water Gain 
Total Water Loss 



2,395 
20 



2,415 MGD 



1,843 





281 




81 









2,205 MGD 




2,415 MGD 




-2,205 MGD 


TOTAL GAIN: 


210 MGD 



Loss to Municipal, Industrial and 
Agricultural Users 



22 MGD 



Net Gain 



210 MGD 

- 22 MGD 
188 MGD 



-43- 




Map No. 5 
GENERAL 
RECHARGE MAP 

FOR 
ALACHUA COUNTY 
FLORIDA 



I 



INCREASING 
RECHARGE 



I 




' S-^^i /"'/v- 



.-flOrt ^o.'^o, p.Q^ 




NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



Wat 



Wat 



Tot 
Tol 



Lo{ 



Nel 



ll 



which case the Suwannee River Water Management District or 
St. Johns River Water Management District, charged with 
regulating consumptive water use within their respective 
jurisdictions would evaluate groundwater withdrawals. 

Existing hydrological system.s indicate a gross water pro- 
duction of about 2 00 MGD . This number is only a rough ap- 
proximation and may rise or fall depending upon the manage- 
ment and affects of recharge alterations or modifications 
or the influence of large scale water v/ithdrawals . Should 
phosphate mining or other large scale consumptive industry 
occur, based upon engineering data, the political forum 
would have to be utilized to evaluate trade-offs between 
the use of this resource with respect to any detrimental 
results expected from, that consumption. 

This large volume of water beneath the County does not neces- 
sarily imply that all that water is available for use in the 
County. Moral and legal questions also arise when the im.por- 
tance of recharge potential is evaluated in terms of Florida 
as a whole and the dependence of other areas of the state on 
the Floridan aquifer. These considerations are beyond the 
scope of this report; however, in summary, water supplv 
problems in the County appear to be more problems of quality 
than quantity. 

Groundwater Quality 

In general, the concentration of substances dissolved in 
streams is much lower than the concentration of similar 
substances dissolved in groundwater, except for the water 
in the secondary and water table aquifers. Water from the 
Floridan aquifer usually has high hardness and lov; values 



-45- 



of turbidity and color. Iron concentrations are high along 
with bicarbonates and sulphate concentrations although the 
two latter values can vary greatly. Variations in water 
quality within the aquifer are due primarily to natural 
factors with the concentration of dissolved substances gener- 
ally increasing progressively with depth. 

The chemical quality of the upper aquifers is generally 
more variable with the most objectionable quality charac- 
teristics being iron, calcium and magnesium hardness and 
nitrate in some localities. Color is not usually a problem 
in the upper aquifers, however, it is significant in the 
Floridan aquifer in some areas of the County, i.e., in High 
Springs and around Paynes Prairie. 

In terms of water quality, groundwater is generally con- 
sidered to be excellent. Only in a few instances has 
groundwater been found to be of objectional quality because 
of excessive mineral concentration or bacteriological con- 
tamination. Instances of bacteriological contamination 
have been documented in past years and in all cases problems 
involving public water supplies have been quickly corrected. 
However, in recent years an increasing number of public water 
supplies have been found to be bacteriologically inferior by 
the Alachua County Health Department. 

Although adequately handled and provided for in the past, 
provision for the proper management of surface waters and 
wastewater discharges to groundwater must be maintained in 
future years not only through agencies such as the Alachua 
County Pollution Control Board, but also through agencies 
responsible for incorporating such information into the com- 
prehensive planning process. 



-46- 



Wetlands 

All too often in past years, vetlands, in the form of swamps 
and coastal marshes either of fresh or salt water, were 
regarded as worthless land suitable only for landfilling or 
if properly channelized and drained, agricultural uses. Ir 
recent years the natural values of these wetlands have been 
investigated by a number of researchers and found to be tre- 
mendously important to the maintenance of natural systems. 

One product of the 1972 Florida Wildlife Federation Legis- 
lative Conference was a statement recognizing the values 
and importance of the state's wetlands. Wetlands were noted 
as important for: 

1) The protection of aquatically dependent vegetation and 
wildlife; 

2) The propagation of food supplies; 

3) The maintenance of protective barriers against floods, 
hurricanes and other storms and for the prevention of 
erosion of shorelines and soils; 

4) The assimilation of pollutants; 

5) The prevention of saltwater intrusion in coastal areas; 

6) Their value as surface water storage and recharge areas; 

7) The moderation of local climate; 

8) Their potential to provide present and future citizens 
with an acceptable quality of life including historic 
and recreational values and esthetic enjoyment. 

In addition, the Conference summarized that the protection 
and proper management of wetlands is necessary to insure 
the economic well being of the state and the health, safety 
and welfare of its citizens. 



-47- 



An earlier report by the North Central Florida Regional 
Planning Council staff entitled "Areas of Environmental 
Concern in Planning District III" recognized the value of 
one such wetland area, Gumroot Swamp, on the northern bor- 
der of Newnan ' s Lake. This area was identified as exhitibing 
great natural value as protection for Newnan ' s Lake. Gum- 
root Swamp, like many other wetlands in Alachua County and 
the region, not only acts as a valuable natural filter by 
removing dissolved nutrients from surface runoff, but may be 
significant as a groundwater recharge area. The swamp 
is also used for habitats and/or spawning areas for fish 
and wildlife. The value of such areas to minimize the 
shock or impact of cultural influences on surface water 
bodies in Alachua County cannot be minimized. 

Land use planning and subsequent development should consider 
such concepts as wetland ecology and resources as a viable 
element in the planning process. Development proposals for 
wetland areas should have the review of representatives of 
the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission as well as 
other environment related agencies in order to provide local 
government with the ability to fully assess each wetland 
system with respect to its attributes and importance to other 
related systems. 

Wetland systems in Alachua County have been identified on 
Map #6. Inform.ation contained on this map is generalized 
because of data limitations and the broad scale at which 
the map was prepared. The basic information was drawn from 
7 1/2 minute U.S.G.S. topographic maps and aerial photographs 
of Alachua County taken in April, 1974. Areas identified as 
permanently wet represent those lake or swamp areas which, 
according to that information, exist in a perpetually wet 



-48- 




Map No. 6 
GENERAL WETLANDS 

MAP 

FOR 

ALACHUA COUNTY 

FLORIDA 



I 

REASI 
ISITIVI 

I 



INCREASING 
SENSITIVITY 





Predominately 
Dry 






' -i- -^ _ 


Intermittantly 
Wet 






|^>^^^!!^^!^«!^^><^^I^^ 


Permanently 
Wet 





NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



An earlier rep 
Planning Counc 
Concern in Pla 
one such wetla 
der of Nevman ' 
great natural 
root Swamp, li 
the region, nc 
removing dissc 
significant as 
is also used f 
and wildlife, 
shock or impac 
bodies in Alac 

Land use plani 
such concepts 
element in th« 
wetland areas 
the Florida G. 
other environs 
government wi 
system with r 
related syste 

Wetland syste 
Map #6. Info 
because of da 
the map was p 
7 1/2 minute 
of Alachua Cc 
permanently v 
according to 



state. Areas defined as intermittently wet include swamp- 
lands, wet prairies and some lakes which because of their 
weed choked appearance or available information, appear only 
to be intermittent water bodies. 

Areas not indicated on the map are assumed to be generally 
dry land. Because of the nature of eastern Alachua County, 
with its many small swamp areas scattered throughout the area, 
it is not possible to indicate every small wetland area; 
therefore, the map must be considered general in nature. 
In addition, because the aerial photograph utilized was taken 
during a "dry" season, some potentially wet areas are undoubt- 
edly omitted or their areas minimized, therefore, the map 
as presented is also conservative. 

Because wetlands are a valuable natural resource, they are 
indicated on the map by darker patterns and, therefore, are 
considered to provide limitations to development in the final 
natural resource analysis. 

Flood Plains 

Flood plains, although perhaps not easily identifiable as 
natural resources, are an important, if not indivisible, 
part of our natural surface water systems. They often cor- 
respond to a broad belt surrounding the existing stream 
channels or isolated depressions and are shaped in part by 
topography, storm water volume, vegetation and other natural 
and manmade forces. 

Flood plains commonly include all those areas, including 
depressions, that are indunated following a storm whose 
severity is often judged by the water levels which could 



-50- 



be expected following a storm of a certain stated rainfall 
intensity. They are usually defined as that area which is 
indunated as a result of a rainfall v/hose magnitude and 
duration occurs on the average only once in each 100 years. 
For comparison, stream channels are often defined by that 
area which is indunated by a storm which occurs on the aver- 
age once in every ten year period. 

Flood plains provide valuable services if left in a natural 
state. They not only provide flood ways to remove storm 
waters, but when not satisfying this prime function, they 
may also provide useful open space areas near urban centers. 
In addition, wildlife may find refuge in vegetation often 
naturally abundant near well watered areas, ground water 
recharge occurs through soils during high water levels, and 
recreation is often enhanced in naturally viable settings. 

Due to the relative infrequency of major storms and the bene- 
fits afforded by a gently sloping topography, development 
in and around flood plains often appears highly feasible. 
However, the potential for human and economic loss is usually 
increased. Areas with a naturally high flood potential can- 
not tolerate continued development which, in effect, would 
retard the ability of the flood plain to absorb water and 
restrict the flow of water from the land. Flood volume and 
velocity are increased downstream by development within 
flood plains causing downstream flood hazards. The construc- 
tion of storm sewers, canals, and other stream channel im- 
provements, may greatly alleviate potential flooding problems 
in urban areas. However, as evidenced by recent drainage 
studies for the Gainesville Urban Area, downstream flooding 
problems may be intensi:^ied by increasing the amount and 
rate of flood waters into downstream areas. 



-51- 



Proper management of flood plain areas is particularly impor- 
tant in urbanizing areas to insure against serious property 
damage and loss of life. In many instances the most effective 
technique for reducing flood damage is to enforce development 
regulations limiting land uses within flood plain areas. The 
City of Gainesville's flood control ordinance #1873 and the 
Alachua County Commission's efforts to conduct drainage studies 
for the County illustrate the public recognition of flood 
problems and of the need to plan for water management through- 
out Alachua Countv. 



Detailed flood plain maps have been prepared for the Gainesville 
Urban Area through the Water Management Study prepared for the 
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council by Sverdrup & 
Parcel, Inc. Utilization of this and other information has enabled 
a general map of the flood plains within this area to be prepared. 
This map is presented in the study entitled Environmentally Sensiti^ 
Areas, 1974, prepared by the Gainesville Department of Com- 
munity Development. Generalized flood plain maps have been 
prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey on the 7 1/2 minutes 
quadrangle maps for Alachua County. Because of the generality 
of the U.S.G.S. maps and the great amount of detail that would 
be lost upon reduction, flood plain maps have not been prepared 
for inclusion in this report. Major flood plains, however, are 
somewhat accounted for by the inclusion of the wetlands map 
which approximates the general distribution of major flood 
plain areas within the County. Future studies of this nature 
must, as new information becomes available, consider general 
flood plain maps at a scale consistent with study accuracy 
in order that they may be evaluated with respect to other 
natural systems. 



-52- 



Water Reclamation and Reuse 

As water supply demands and needs increase, the reuse of 
wastewater will become a more attractive alternative. 
Even though Alachua County has, at the present time, abun- 
dant groundwater resources, those resources are finite. In 
the foreseeable future, because of increased growth and de- 
mands of new industry, water reclamation or even reuse may 
become more of a practical rather than a hypothetical problem. 

Reclamation of wastewater for reuse is not a new concept. 
Many areas of the world including the United States, par- 
ticularly inland areas, have traditionally disposed of treated 
waste effluents as an irrigation supply for raising a variety 
of crops. Many cities in north central Florida currently 
utilize spray irrigation as a method of wastewater effluent 
disposal. In a sense Alachua County has also been part of 
wastewater reclamation efforts for a number of years in an 
indirect way. That is, a large percentage of the ground- 
water withdrawn for domestic and industrial consumption is 
returned to the earth through wastewater effluents and sep- 
tic tanks via percolation or sinkholes. For example, efflu- 
ents from the new Kanapaha Wastewater Treatment Plant, which 
will employ advanced methods of wastewater treatment, will 
recharge the Floridan aquifer directly through deep injection 
wells. 

Appreciable quantities of inadequately treated wastewater 
effluents, including storm water runoff, can, and in some 
instances do, have adverse impact on groundwater quality. 
The County has had in the past instances of groundwater 
pollution directly attributable to wastewater discharges. 
Although quickly remedied, it is almost certain that such 



53- 



instances can occur again if groundwater systems and re- 
sources are abused. 

Although progress has been relatively slow in the United 
States, the State of California has conducted expensive 
experimentation in water reclamation. As a result, the 
California V7ater Resources Control Board has officially 
approved reclaimed water for all water contact sports such 
as fishing, boating, swimming and water skiing. From these 
examples it appears that the future of wastewater recycling 
is optimistic; however, there ar^ still a number of problems 
and drawbacks of water reclamation which must be considered. 



Opponents to wastewater reclamation and reuse refer to the 
problems encountered in Europe after World Wars I 
and II, where outbreaks of disease occurred resulting 
from wastewater irrigation of fields. In addition, recent 
research has shown that the infectious dose of numerous 
viruses is extremely low; enough virus can exist in the 
average city water supply to produce as many as 600 clinical 
and non-clinical infections daily. Bacteriological research 
has revealed such things as the existence of a chlorine 
resistant bacteria, significant because chlorine is the 
primary purifying agent in water treatment. Treatment processes 
necessary to allow waste water use for human consumption or 
contact activities are costly. This expense factor restricts 
their utilization. 

Despite these problems, there are methods of water salvage 
and conservation which are currently effective and others 
currently under research which could be considered for Alachua 
County should the need become evident in future years. These 



-54- 



methods include vegetation management, which would conserve 
those types of vegetation contributing to lower losses of 
water due to evapotranspiration. Water conservation methods 
are numerous and would include modification and landscaping 
techniques, changes in municipal operations such as street 
washing, more effective water metering and redesign of appli- 
ances to reduce water consumption, long range forecasting of 
climatological conditions and resulting advance planning and 
modification of irrigation techniques. The consideration 
of these methods can be facilitated by a reasonable regional 
approach. Proper olanning can reduce costs in the number 
of facilities and personnel, as well as maximum pollution 
control . 



In future years it should be anticipated that agencies such 
as the Alachua County Pollution Control Board, the Suwannee 
River Water Management District, the St. Johns River Water 
Management District and various planning agencies will take 
a more active role in water resources planning including 
provisions for wastewater reuse and reclamation. 



-55- 



SOILS 



Introduction 

Soils may be defined as distinct three dimensional bodies 
of material lying at the earth's surface limited by the 
atmosphere above, bedrock or transitional rock material 
below and other soil bodies laterally. They have formed 
as a result of interacting physical, chemical and biological 
processes and have been conditioned by relief over periods of 
time to form a mixture of weathered rock material and minerals, 
organic matter, water and air in varying proportions. 

Soils are demonstrably important in all formal and informal 
planning activities because almost every activity of man is 
necessarily limited to a basic starting point, soils. Factors 
associated with soils such as water table location, rock or 
clay content, thickness and variety of other engineering 
parameters limit the uses to which a soil can be placed. 
Therefore, because there are many characteristics that may 
be utilized to assess the uses for general types of soils, 
literally hundreds of combinations or suitability interpre- 
tations are possible for each soil or combination of soils. 

Soils and Planning 

Early investigations into soil types were promoted by 
the growth of our agricultural oriented society coupled with 
the needs of an expanding nation into a new continent. 
Further impetus for use of soils information was brought 
about during World War II when engineering interpretations 
of soil capabilities were necessary to adequately plan for 
military construction and operation. Since the early 1950 's 



-56- 



detailed soil surveys coupled with in-depth soil analysis and 
interpretation have shown that soils information is valuable 
for both general and operational planning, particularly if 
soil suitability interpretations have been prepared by soil 
scientists. 

The first detailed soil survey in Alachua County was conducted 
in 1937-40 by the Division of Soil Survey, Bureau of Plant 
Industry, Soil and Agricultural Engineering, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture and the Florida Agricultural Experiment Sta- 
tion. This analysis was oriented towards assessing soil capa- 
bilities for agricultural uses, and soils were only evaluated 
to a depth of 30 inches. At present, the Soil Conservation 
Service is conducting a five year program to complete a de- 
tailed, modern soil survey for Alachua County. During this 
process soils will be evaluated to a depth of two meters 
(about six feet) and a wide variety of soil suitability inter- 
pretations differentiated on the basis of the potential uses 
and specific attributes of each soil type. 

The general soil suitability maps which are utilized in this 

study are adequate for broad land use planning because they 

facilitate an overall evaluation of soil capabilities early 

in the planning process. However, the detailed soil m.aps 

that are presently being produced will provide interpretive 

information on soil limitations and hazards for a variety of 

land uses and will be an even more valuable guide to comprehensive 

land planning. Individual site explorations will still be 
recommended in site planning for high intensity land uses. 

The soils in Alachua County are presently grouped into 18 
different groups or soil associations in which the predominant 
soil types of each association form a part of the association 



-57- 



name. Soil ratings and limitations have been assigned through 
a careful evaluation of each general soil type including 
assessments of value for sanitary facilities, community develop- 
ment, water management, recreation, agriculture uses, wildlife 
habitat, and sources of construction material. Each of these 
suitability classes V7as formulated specifically to provide 
information to conduct general planning for different types 
of land uses . 

Table 4 below lists and describes general soil associations 
found in the general soils map of Alachua County (Map #7) . 

TABLE 4 
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS OF ALACHUA COUNTY 

Areas dominated by sandy droughty soils not subject to flooding: 

1. Candler-Apopka association: Nearly level to strongly 
sloping excessively drained soils with very thick sandy 
layers underlain by sandy layers containing thin loamy 
or sandy loam lamella, and well drained soils with very 
thick sandy layers over loamy subsoil. 

2. Jonesville-Chief land-Archer association: Nearly level 
to sloping excessively drained soils with very thick 
sandy layers over loamy subsoil, and well to moderately 
v/ell drained sandy soils with loamy or clayey subsoil 
underlain by limestone. 

Areas dominated by well drained soils not subject to flooding: 

3. Arredondo-Zuber association: Nearly level to sloping 
well drained soils with very thick sandy layers over 
loamy subsoil and well drained soils with thin sandy 
layers over loamy or clayey subsoil. 

4. Hernando-Archer-Chief land association: Nearly level 
to gently sloping moderately-well to well drained 
sandy soils with loamy or clayey subsoil, underlain 
by limestone. 



-58- 



5. Kendrick-Hague-Zuber association: Nearly level to 
sloping well drained soils with very thick sandy layers 
over loamy subsoil and well drained soils with thin 
sandy layers over clayey subsoil. 

Areas dominated by moderately well to poorly drained soils 
not subject to flooding: 

6. Tavares-Myakka-Basinger association: Nearly level to 
gently sloping moderately well drained soils sandy 
throughout and poorly drained sandy soils with weakly 
cemented sandy subsoil and poorly drained soils, sandy 
throughout. 

7. Stilson-Pelham-Mascotte association: Nearly level moder- 
ately well and poorly drained sandy soils v/ith loamy sub- 
soil and poorly drained sandy soils with a weakly cemented 
sandy subsoil layer underlain by loam.y' subsoil. 

8. Sparr-Lochloosa-Tavares association: Nearly level to 
sloping somewhat poorly drained soils with very thick 
or thick sandy layers over loamy subsoil and moderately 
well drained soils, sandy throughout. 

9. Blichton-Flemington-Kanapaha association: Nearly level 
to strongly sloping, poorly drained soils with thick 
sandy layers over loamy or clayey subsoil and poorly 
drained soils with very thick sandy layers over loamy 
subsoil. 

10. Scranton-Basinger-Myakka association: Nearly level to 
gently sloping somewhat poorly drained very thick sandy 
black surfaces, poorly drained soils sandy throughout 
and poorly drained sandy soils v/ith weakly cemented 
sandy subsoil. 

11. Lynne-Pomona-Popano association: Nearly level poorly 
drained sandy soils with a v/eakly cemented sandy sub- 
soil layer underlain by loamy or clayey subsoil and 
poorly drained soils, sandy throughout. 

12. Myakka-Wauchula-Placid association: Nearly level poorly 
drained sandy soils with weakly cem.ented sandy subsoil 
and poorly drained sandy soils v/ith a weakly cemented 
sandy subsoil layer underlain by loamy subsoil and 

very poorly drained soils, sandy throughout. 



-59- 



13. Meggett, Var .-Wauchula-Chobee association: Nearly level 
poorly drained soils with thin sandy layers over clayey 
subsoil and poorly drained sandy soils with a weakly 
cemented sandy subsoil layer underlain by loamy subsoil, 
and very poorly drained soils with very thick loamy 
layers, over sand. 

14. Eureka-Paisley-Eaton association: Nearly level poorly 
drained soils with thin sandy layers over clayey subsoil 
and poorly drained soils with thick sandy layers over 
clayey subsoil. 

Areas dominated by poorly and very poorly drained soils subject 
to flooding: 

15. Plummer, Var-Rutlege Var. association: Nearly level 
poorly drained soils with very thick sandy layers over 
loamy subsoil and very poorly drained soils, sandy 
throughout . 

16. Martel-Placid association: Nearly level very poorly 
drained soils with thin loamy layers over clayey sub- 
soil and very poorly drained soils sandy throughout. 

17. Okeechobee-Terra Cela-Tomoka association: Nearly level 
very poorly drained soils, organic material more than 
50 inches thick, or organic materials 16 to 40 inches 
thick over sand. 

18. Fresh Water Swamp association: Nearly level very poorly 
drained soils subject to prolonged flooding. 

Source: General Soils Atlas for Planning 
Districts III and IV. 



Methodology 

For the purpose of assessing the suitability of soils for 
community development, a soil scientist from the Alachua County 
office of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service grouped the 18 
soil types of Alachua County into six very general categories 
based on suitability for community development. In this case, 
assessing soils suitability for community development includes 



-60- 



a consideration of soil properties that effect footings and 
foundations for housing and other light weight buildings, a 
consideration of soil properties that affect growth of plants 
used for landscaping and those that affect traf f icability of 
streets, as well as consideration of wetness, available water 
capability, fertility, weight bearing capacity and flood 
hazards. In addition, septic tank suitability closely parallels 
coinnunity development potential. 

Therefore, for the purposes of this section soils are mapped 
according to their general suitability for. community develop- 
ment. It must be noted, however, that in many instances 
limitations for such development can be overcome by modern 
engineering technology. In addition, soils suitability maps 
may be revised and updated as the current soil survey reaches 
completion. 

On the other hand, with large areas of soils generally suit- 
able for community development, sound land use planning 
may aid in directing growth away from many areas with poor 
soils suitability in future years. Therefore, provision for 
such areas must be an important consideration in planning for 
growth and development of the county. 

Map #8 has been prepared to illustrate the general distribu- 
tion of soils types in Alachua County as they relate to their 
suitability for community development. Such a guide is 
necessarily limited to the level of sophistication or 
accuracy to which the general soils map of Alachua County was 
prepared. Therefore, this map like other maps prepared in 
this text is only suitable for general planning activities. 
For specific site details the use of an up-to-date modern soil 
survey is recommended. 



-62- 



Table 5 summarized the groupings of soil associations that 
were utilized in the preparation of the soils suitability map 
for community development, noted as Map #8 in the text. 



TABLE 5 
SOIL SUITABILITY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 
ASSOCIATION CHART* 



Soil Association 
Group Composite Components From General 
Group Number Name Soils Map 

1 Chandler, Jonesville, 1, 2, 3 
Arrendondo Association 

2 Hernando, Kendrick 4, 5 
Association 

3 Tavares, Stilson, Sparr 6, 7, 8 
Association 

4 Scranton, Lynne, Myakka 10, 11, 12 
Association 

5 Blichton, Maggett, Eureka, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 
Plummer, Martel Association 

6 Okeechobee, Swamp Association 17, 18 

*In order of decreasing suitability for 
community development 



-63- 




Map No. 8 
GENERAL SOILS 
SUITABILITY MAP 

FOR 

ALACHUA COUNTY 

FLORIDA 



DECREASING 
SUITABILITY 

FOR 
COMMUNITY 
DEVELOPMENT 



Chandler, 
Joneavjile, 
Arredondo 
Assn. 

Hsrnando, 

Kendrick 

Assn. 



Tavarcs, 
Stilson, 
Sparr 
Assn. 

Scranton, 
Lynne, 
Myakka 
Assn. 



77'Z^?7iV777Tl 






m 



Bllchton, 
Eureka , 
Plummer, 
W^^/)f{VA Martei Asan. 






Okeechotoe* 
Swamp Assn. 





4. D n £ 



NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



Table 
were i 
for c( 



Group Nui 

1 



3 
4 

5 

6 



TOPOGRAPHY 



General 



Topographic information is of critical importance to planning 
because topographic features, reflecting variations in height 
and degree of slope, affect the ecology of an area and the suita- 
bility of the land for development. More specifically, topography 
often greatly influences the type and cost of development, con- 
trols the rate and direction of water runoff, contributes to 
landscape esthetics, influences weather and climate and affects 
the type and amount of vegetation and wildlife. 

Topographic information can be obtained from several sources 
especially in the form of maps or aerial photographs. The most 
commonly available maps are from the United States Geological 
Survey (USGS) , a division of the Department of the Interior. 
The Geological Survey Office produces standard ::o;)0';j:aphic maps 
covering the entire United States. Each map is boundc 1 by 
parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude. These 
"quadrangle" maps are produced in three series: a 7 1/2 minute 
series covering 7 1/2 minutes of latitude and longitude at a scale 
of 1:24,000; a 15 minute series covering 15 minutes of latitude 
and longitude at a scale of 1:62,500; and a 30 minute series 
covering 30 minutes of latitude and longitude at scale of 1:125,000 

The USGS maps contain three basic types of data: cultural features, 
water features, and topographic relief. Cultural features in- 
clude roads, railroads, cities and towns. Water features include 
lakes, rivers , streams and major intermittent channels. Topo- 
graphic relief is shown with contour lines and spot elevations. 
Some maps include additional information such as woodland areas, 
limits of urbanized areas, highway classifications and the 
boundaries of major public land areas. 



-65- 



Maps which show topography and other features for much of 
Alachua County, in addition to the USGS maps, can be obtained 
from the Florida Department of Transportation, and the North 
Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Aerial photographs 
are available for purchase or examination for many areas of 
the County through the North Central Florida Regional Planning 
Council, the office of the County Forester or the County Court- 
house. Such photos are often quite useful in assessing sub- 
surface structures , drainage patterns , vegetation coverage 
and land use. 

County Topography 

Alachua County is located in the topographic division of Florida 
known as the Central Highlands and may be divided into two 
major land resource areas each typified by a characteristic 
physiography. The North Central Florida Ridge area is described 
as having a gently undulating land surface. In contrast, the 
Atlantic Coast Flatwoods area is generally of low, somewhat flat 
terrain having numerous swamps and large shallow lakes. Elevations 
in Alachua County generally range between 50 and 210 feet above 
sea level. 

The topography of the County owes its character to two major 
factors. The first involves alternating advances and recessions 
of the sea during each of the major Pleistocene (10,000 to 
2,000,000 year ago) ice ages. Terraces or wave-cut beaches 
eroded into local land surfaces wherever each advance remained 
stationary before ultimately retreating. As many as five 
terraces represented as hills or rises in local land surface 
ranging to over 200 feet in elevation have been identified in 
Florida. At least two of these terraces, the Okefenokee, at 
about 150 feet elevation, and the Wicomico, at about 100 feet 
elevation have been identified in Alachua County. 



-66- 



The second factor is the solution by ground and surface waters 
of the relatively soft limestone formations underlying much of 
the area. The term karst topography is used where such solution 
has served to divert waters to underground routes or create 
lakes by forming depressions in the limestone down to the ground 
water level. Such differential solution has been a significant 
factor in creating lakes, eliminating surface drainage by 
streams, and forming sinkholes in some parts of the County. 

Much of the north and northeastern portion of Alachua County 
is a nearly level plateau-like area varying in elevation of 
150 to 200 feet. Relatively impermeable clayey sands beneath 
the sandy surface soils have caused stream drainage to develop 
radially outward from the plateau most likely served as a 
natural drainage divide between the Atlantic Ocean and the 
Gulf of Mexico. Some of the present drainage still reaches 
the Gulf by way of the Santa Fe River to the Suwannee River 
and then to the Gulf. Many swampy areas occur throughout the 
plateau. These areas owe their water retention capabilities 
to underlying impermeable clays beneath the surface sands. 

The western portion of Alachua County is a plains region having 
elevations ranging from approximately 50 to 100 feet and notably 
characterized by the lack of a surface drainage system. The 
Hawthorne formation, which probably overlaid this area in 
geological past, has been removed by erosion or carried away 
in solution often leaving the deeply pitted and eroded Ocala 
limestone within a few feet of the surface, covered with a 
thin layer of sand. The sands or clayey sands lying above the 
Ocala limestones tend to mask the irregularities of the lime- 
stone surface and often form sandhills or ridges in the 
southwestern part of the County. The solvent action of ground 
water is more evident on this plain than any other part of the 
County. Sinkholes and other solution features are common. 



-67- 



The south central and southeastern portions of Alachua County 
are characterized by flat bottom lakes, prairies, and erosional 
remnants of the plateau. Paynes Prairie, Levy Lake and 
Kanapaha Prairie are examples of this area. The level bottoms 
of the prairies and lakes have been observed to occur somewhat 
uniformly at elevations slightly below 60 feet above mean sea 
level (MSL) . The three different types of flat bottomed 
depressions all appear to be dependent upon local ground water 
levels . 

Influence of Topography 

Urban development tends to follow the direction of least topo- 
graphic resistence dependent only on limitations imposed by 
modern technology. It may often be observed that rivers and 
valleys tend to channel urban expansion; major highways and 
railroads tend to follow river channel routes because of the 
generally gradual continuous grades; and bridges that often 
open up new areas for development tend to be constructed at 
the narrowest points of rivers of where the river is shallow 
and exhibits a hard bottom and easy access grades. Therefore, 
topography to a large extent helps shape patterns of growth. 

Topography, or land form, interacts with those physical 
characteristics that help shape or form it, such as type of 
soils, drainage pattern, climate and vegetation. Therefore, 
because of its imposition on the natural environment, land 
development must insure the stability of topography during 
the physical development of sites by providing adequate 
grading (slope stabilization) , drainage and soil 
structures in order to make the best use of the construction 
site within the limitations set by the topography. 



-68- 



There are almost no areas in the County that possess topographic 
limitations so great as to preclude specific types of develop- 
ment. Modern engineering practices can override almost all 
limitations if economics are not a problem. However, there are 
areas which do lend themselves to particular uses because of 
topography. 

One concept specifically concerned with the limitations to de- 
velopment as imposed by topography is referred to as slope use 
zoning. This concept revolves around the maxim which maintains 
that within the framework of construction practices and tech- 
nology there are certain slopes, or ranges of slopes, upon which 
certain types of construction can be most economically under- 
taken. 

It has been observed that on certain specific slopes the cost 
of construction to meet the common needs of certain land uses 
will be minimized. This cost of construction, as reflected in 
the consumer cost, includes not only the cost of the structure, 
but also the costs of site preparation, site development, 
utility services and the provision of necessary drainage facil- 
ities and access roads. Some of the basic provisions of the 
slope use zoning concept are outlined in Table 6. 

The reader is referred to the report entitled "Housing, 1974", 
prepared by the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 
for further discussion on slope use zoning and limiting effects 
of topography on development. 



-69- 



TABLE 6 

GENERAL SLOPE USE ZONING 

Slope Limitations 

0-1% Drainage problems make many types of 

development unsuitable. Limited farm- 
ing and large scale lineal production 
industry are often economically feasible. 

1-5% Commercial and residental developments of 

all types are feasible because of generally 
good natural drainage and easy slopes. 
Good general farming potential. Roads 
begin to follow topographic contours. 

5-12% Small scale commercial structures and 

intensive small industry feasible. 
Terrace type landscaping favors cluster- 
ed single family residences on large lots 
and roads are generally parallel to con- 
tours. General farming from 5-8%, spe- 
cialized farming to 12%. 

over 12% Industry and commerce usually economically 

impractical. Isolated single family 
residences on large lots are feasible. 
All types of roads become expensive and 
only specialized farming is practical. 

The effects of erosion increase directly v/ith degree and length 
of slope; therefore, it is sometimes desirable to establish con- 
traints to development based upon slope. As exhibited on Table 
6, low slopes are usually highly desirable for residential develop- 
ment because they are usually well drained, easier to build upon 
than steeper slopes, and do not impose limitations to vehicle 
access. However, even on low to moderate slopes , precautions 
may need to be taken to retard or prevent serious erosion , espe- 
cially during construction stages of development. 



-70- 



Contigent upon soil and bedrock conditions, slopes over 10% 
generally impose greater construction problems and costs in 
order to insure slope integrity and the stability of struc- 
tures on such slopes. While steep slopes do provide opportu- 
nities for creative architecture and site planning and may be 
desirable from an esthetic point of view, increasing density of 
units often creates other potentially hazardous conditions 
which must be anticipated early in the planning process. 

In general, very steep slopes are unsuitable for any form of 
urban, agricultural or forestry use because removal of trees 
and other vegetation produces rapid erosion, . resulting in 
sedimentation in streams and heightening of flood peaks. 
Such slopes are most appropriately reserved for limited re- 
creational uses. 

In Alachua County slopes are not generally found in extremes. 
The greatest topographic problem areas in the County are 
those having very low or flat slopes exhibiting poor drainage 
and which often appear as wetlands on topographic maps. Only 
small areas appear to have excessively steep slopes, and those 
primarily occur along narrow stream margins. Moderate to steep 
slopes are generally found in those areas of the County where 
the topographically higher sand terrace deposits grade west- 
ward and down to the Hawthorne formation and subsequently to 
the limestone plain of western Alachua County. 

In all but a few areas, steepness of slope does not impair 
development potential. Due to modern engineering technology 
and the desire for an estehtically pleasing environment, limited 
development often occurs in areas of moderate to steep slopes. 
As long as proper development limitations and controls are 



-71- 



observed during development and in early planning stages, 
limited areas of moderate to steep slopes in the County only 
pose serious threats when located or developed in such a manner 
as to create undue adverse environmental impact. Such impact 
could result in part from the destruction of natural vegetation 
causing increased erosion and sedimentation, the destruction of 
valuable areas of unique river forest vegetation, inadequate 
provisions for surface runoff in terms of both quality and 
quantity into natural water courses, and site deterioration 
caused by a poor accounting of soil, water table and bedrock 
properties during the planning process. 

Areas of very flat slopes cover significantly large areas in 
the County and usually exhibit other properties which identify 
them as having poor or limited development potential. These 
might include poor soil suitability for development, flood 
plain designation, low relief with typical lowland topographic 
characteristics such as a high water table and lowland vegeta- 
tive species. Areas such as these are readily apparent in the 
County and include those large areas of prairie in south central 
Alachua County and also include significant areas of low relief 
such as exhibited in the headwaters areas of Hatchet Creek in 
the northern portion of the Gainesville Urban Area. 

For the purposes of this publication no map has been prepared 
illustrating topographic features in the County. The rationale 
for this exclusion concerns problems of map scale. Areas in 
the County having steep slopes are of such limited areal extent 
as to make them almost indistinguishable on the scale utilized 
in this report. Large areas of relatively low slopes on the 
other hand, are readily identified on available topographic maps 
and in most cases, because of other characteristic features such 
as their vegetative or wetland nature, otherwise reflect topo- 
graphic influence. 



-72- 



CLIMATE 

General 

Climate is a natural resource in that it permits or facilitates 
many types of activities or land uses otherwise restricted to 
other geolographic localities. The impact of climate is exempli- 
fied by a consideration of its impact on outdoor activities, such 
as year round recreation and farming which are quite apparent 
and others such as energy consumption which are not as apparent 
but equally significant. Climate then is an integral resource 
of the area because it helps shape or modify virtually every 
other resource as well as human activity and environment. 

Climate in Alachua County 

A brief description of the climate and sources of climatological 
data in Alachua County was include in the Water and Sewer Develop- 
ment Plan for Alachua County (1974) and is incorporated herein as 
follows : 

The climate in Alachua County is mild, with a mean annual temp- 
erature of 70.2 degrees and an average yearly rainfall of 
approximately 52 inches. Precipitation varies widely from year 
to year, particularly in the summer months. Alternating wet and 
dry cycles of several years duration are observed. Most of the 
rain, an average of about 36 inches per year, is tropical in 
nature, falling during the summer months as thunder showers. 
About 16 inches of the yearly average comes as winter rain of 
the cyclonic or frontal type, usually slow and drizzly and 
followed by a drip in temperature. 



-73- 



The yearly average temperature for the summer months varies 
little from year to year, but wider variations is observed 
during the winter when cyclonic storms frequently bring cold 
weather from the north. Frost depends upon these storms. 
Killing frost can be expected, on the average, over an 8 -day 
period each year, from December 4 to February 22. Fog occur 
during 30 to 40 days each year, generally in the early morning 
and winter. The area has never received serious damage from 
hurricanes and chances for a hurricane within any one year are 
considered to be in the 3 to 4 percent range. 

Climatological data can be obtained from the U.S. Weather 
Bureau publications for five stations within the County. Two 
of these stations are in the Gainesville Area and the other 
three are located in High Springs, Melrose and Island Grove. 
The one station at Gainesville, 3 WSW, keeps records of pre- 
cipitation, temperature, and evaporation and has both recording 
and non-recording gages. This station also keeps records of 
soil temperatures at various depths. Records cover a period of 15 
years, beginning in 195 3. Precipitation and temperature records 
for the area are also available for a period of more than 6 
years up to and including 1956, from the old University of 
Florida Station at Gainesville. Table 7 has been reproduced 
from the above referenced publication and shows the average 
monthly temperature and rainfall in Gainesville. 



I 
I 



-74- 



Month 



January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 



TABLE 7 

AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE 
AND RAINFALL 
FOR THE PERIOD 1931-60 
ALACHUA COUNTY 

Average 

Temperature 
(degree F) 

58.0 
59.6 
63.6 
69.5 
75.8 



Average 

Rainfall 

(inches) 

2.60 
3.27 
4.11 
3.72 



80 

81 
81 
79 
72 
73 
58 



48 
64 
49 
69 
95 
23 
75 
52 



Source: Water and Sewer Development Plan for Alachua 
County. 



Influence of Climate 

In general, there are eight primary determinants of climate 
quality that influence urban structure and development: 
(1) latitude; (2) altitude; (3) land form; (4) water bodies; 
(5) temperature; (6) wind; (7) humidity and (8) precipitation. 
In addition, one other attribute of climate, air quality, war- 
rants note. Variations in combinations of these determinants 
results in the wide variety of local climatic conditions. 

Of these primary determinants, latitude determines the amount of 
time during which the sun can shine on any day of the year. 



-75- 



In general, latitude as it relates to distance from the equator 
directly relates to average temperature. Altitude, in a state 
with elevations ranging to only about 400 feet, is not a major 
factor in modifying climatic conditions. 

Where all other influences on local climate are constant, varia- 
tion of landform will result in variation of climate. The 
principal determinant is dependent upon slope orientation. 

Water bodies such as rivers and lakes have a great influence 
on climate. Because water temperatures fluctuate slower than 
air temperatures, bodies of water tend to equalize temperature 
extremes. Temperature is not only influenced by latitude but 
by the nature of the land surface upon which development takes 
place. The heat absorbative qualities of landforms and vegeta- 
tion is significant in planning local environmental conditions. 

Wind has a decided affect on the temperature preceived. The 
human body is cooled by the evaporation of perspiration achieved 
by air movement and low air humidity. In warm weather, anything 
that reduces air movement or increases humidity will give the 
impression of greater heat. The heat loss or cooling effect of 
both people and buildings is also affected by wind. Landforms, 
landscaping, vegetation and structures all influence the impact 
of wind on local environment. Humidity and precipitation are 
certainly significant in how they influence land use and urban 
development. However, modern technology has not yet progressed to 
the point where these factors affecting climate quality can 
be significantly influenced. 



-76- 



Air pollution in the form of vehiclular pollution and waste 
from industrial and power plants as well as noise, which is being 
recognized as a major pollutant, might also be considered 
climatic components. Fortunately however, neither is a signifi- 
cant problem to Alachua County. 

A more complete site planning oriented discussion of these factors 
is contained in the publication entitled Housing, 1973 prepared 
by the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. That 
discussion describes the more important of these aspects that 
pertain primarily to local climatic considerations in Florida. 

Because climate is a resource, it is important to be generally 
aware of its characteristics and affects. However, because 
climate is a relatively fixed or constant resource and because 
climatic modifications can, in general, only be economically 
feasible when influenced on a local scale, further discussion 
is unnecessary to the scope of this report. 



-77- 



VEGETATION 

Agriculture 

General 

As population increases throughout the world, there is every 
reason to expect the demand for agricultural products to con- 
tinually increase. In addition to the high demand for agri- 
cultural products , other problems indigenous to our modern 
society must be overcome if our full potential for agricultural 
growth is to be achieved in the future. These problems include 
increasing urbanization and the subsequent removal of prime 
agricultural lands from production, the economics of agricul- 
ture in a rapidly changing economic state, the effect and 
subsequent management of this large land use as it affects 
our quality of life and the environment, and lastly, meeting 
the growing demand for agricultural products for our own ex- 
panding population. 

Agriculture, grazing and forestry are first elements in the use 
of the land. Although the production of food and fiber 
can be viewed as renewable resources , because of tremendous 
increases in population pressure, it has become apparent that 
productive land is almost beyond value. 

In addition to the increased importance placed upon agriculture 
to fulfill its traditional role in the production of food and 
fiber, the concern for the environment has highlichted other 
values of agriculture as a land use. In many instances preser- 
vation of agriculture as a land use has been enhanced through 
legislation such as Florida's program for Areas of Critical 



I 



-78- 



state Concern. This recognition has been fostered through an 
appreciation of agriculture because of the open space it affords 
and the asthetic contribution provided by this land use. 

Agriculture in Alachua County 

Due to the increase in population and its changing characteris- 
tics, the way in which land is used in the region has changed. 
The primary land use in Alachua County during the early 1900 's 
was agriculture. At the present time, however, there are two 
basic land use patterns found within the County, i.e., agricul- 
ture and urban. Agriculture land use has retained its dominance 
and is still the primary land use category utilizing 373,774 
acres or 65% of the total land area in the County. 

In addition to agriculture, land use patterns of the County have 
been influenced to a great degree by large tracts of commercial 
forestry. Commercial forestry is classified as an agricultural 
land use and makes up 45% of all agricultural lands and 537o 
of the total land in Alachua County. 

While the contribution of agriculture to the County's economy 
is not too significant when measured in terms of employment, 
it is vital when viewed with respect to its dollar value. It 
is estimated that the total value received for farm products in 
Alachua County is approximately $30 million annually. In terms 
of value, the three leading products are poultry, beef cattle 
and forest products. Table 8 summarizes the acreage and values 
of crops produced in 1974 by the 1,172 farms in Alachua County. 



-79- 



TABLE 8 

ACREAGE AND VALUE OF AGRICULTURE IN ALACHUA COUNTY 

IN 1974 



CROPS 



ACREAGE 



Tobacco 




1,721 


Corn 




40,000 


Vegetables 




8,500 


Watermelons 




4,100 


Peanuts 




1,950 


Sugar Cane 




700 


Hay 




30,000 


Lupine 




500 


Indigo 




8,500 


Citrus 




650 


Pecans 




3,000 


Forestry 




168,000 


Beef Cattle 




66,000 


Hogs 




28,000 


Horses, Goats, 


Sheep 





Dairy Products 







Poultry and Products 


80,000 


Permanent Pasture 


150,000 


Millet, Oats, Wheat, 




Rye, Sorghum 


, and 




Silage 




27,350 


Nurseries (58) 








TOTAL VALUE 

$ 2,400,000 

2,000,000 

2,100,000 

950,000 

1,750,000 

10,000 



200,000 
350,000 
4,500,000 
5,500,000 
1,750,000 
750,000 
1,600,000 
5,500,000 



600,000 



TOTAL LESS SUBSIDIES AND OFF FARM INCOME: 



$34,960,000 



Source: Alachua County: Long Range Plan, 1975-1985, 
USDA Agricultural Extension Service. 



-80- 



Problems and Values of Agricultural Land 

In developing natural land for agricultural uses native vege- 
tation is cleared away and crop plants maintained in their 
place. In brief, a naturally diverse community is replaced 
with a monoculture. Hebicides and insecticides are commonly 
used to maintain and optimize the growth of a few preferred 
plant species and to help prevent their utilization by organisms 
other than those beneficial to man. As the size of agricultural 
fields and the intensity of their management increase, their 
value to species other than man diminishes. Frequently the side 
affects of intensive land management, such as runoff v/ith its 
load of fertilizers, pesticides and soil, has an adverse impact 
beyond boundaries of the land being managed. These and other 
problems related to farming present potential hazards to neigh- 
boring ecosystems as well as to the agricultural land itself. 

Water and wildlife may be used as two examples to illustrate 
unnecessary resource depletion where conservation practices 
are not efficiently utilized. Because water control and 
development require a delicate balancing of all hydrologic, 
economic and human influences within watersheds, cultivation 
and cropping practices must have an essential regard for water 
control on a local as well as regional level. Damage to wild- 
life may result primarily through a reduction in habitat where 
cover, feed and water are removed or altered from the natural 
state. Although a considerable amount of this is to be ex- 
pected with some agricultural uses of land, good conservation 
farming employing the practices of grass waterv/ays, vegetated 
slopes, farm ponds and other modifications often results in 
the support of more wildlife compatible to farms. 



-81- 



Although there is little doubt that crop land development and 
use may have an adverse impact on related resources such as 
forest and prairies, some of this development is justifiable 
because of the high priority that necessarily must be assigned 
to agricultural land. Therefore, because of economics, pro- 
duct need and demand and the intangible values attributed to land 
for this use, conservation approaches to agricultural land 
should be continually encouraged. This type of encouragement 
is being provided in Alachua County by the County Agricultural 
Extension Service, the Soil Conservation Service and the Soil 
Conservation and Stabilization Service , which consider all 
elements of the resource base. In addition, because agriculture 
has become an important aspect of the ecology of the County, 
the retention of well managed and productive farm lands should 
be considered equally important as forest and swam.ps areas. 

In addition to the problems described as indigenous to the 
proper management of farm lands such as those concerning 
erosion, irrigation and agricultural runoff, a number of other 
problems have been identified by the Alachua County USDA 
Agricultural Agent. These problems, many of which are common 
to all farmers, must be recognized at an early stage of land 
use planning in order that proper consideration may be made 
wherever possible through the comprehensive planning process. 
These problems include: 

1. Increasing farmland prices will make it difficult for 
young people to become farmers in the future unless 
they have grown up on a family farm. 

2. There is a need for more research and educational pro- 
grams on agricultural land management, including pest, 
weed and disease control. 



-82- 



3. Urban sprawl and the breaking up of farms due to 
economic pressures to developers is slowly but con- 
tinually reducing the amount of farmland available 
for agriculture in the County. 

4 . Land prices may more than double during the next ten 
years making it very difficult for farmers to expand 
their working base. 

5. Property taxes are anticipated to double during the 
next five years and triple in the next ten years. 

6. Increasing portions of farmland in Alachua County will 
be irrigated in future years, thus making it necessary 
to insure adequate water allocations for irrigation 
through water resources planning. 

Agriculture and Soils 

Because the type, quantity and quality of any vegetation depends 
in large degree upon the type of soil in which that vegetation 
occurs, planning around soil types is integral to good agricul- 
tural land management. 

The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has established a capability 
classification for soils by which soil groups are categorized 
as to their general suitability for agricultural use. This is 
a practical grouping based upon limitations of the soils, the 
risk of damage when they are used and the way they respond to 
treatment. The eight capability classes are designated by Roman 
Numerals I-VIII. Soils in Class I have few limitations, the 
widest range of use and the least risk of damage when they are 
used. Those in the other classes have progressively greater 
natural limitations. Soils in Class VIII are rough, shallow or 
otherwise limited so that they do not produce worthwhile yields 
of crops, forage or wood products. Table 9 summarir^es the 
eight classes in the SCS agricultural capability system. 



-83- 



TABLE 9 
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION FOR SOILS 

Class Description 

I Soils have few limitations that restrict their use. 

II Soils that have some limitations that reduce the 

choice of plants that require moderate conservation 
practices. 

Ill Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice 
of plants or that require special conservation prac- 
tices or both. 

IV Soils that have very severe limitations that restrict 
the choice of plants, or that require very careful 
management or both. 

V Soils that are not likely to erode but have other 
limitations, impractical to remove, that restrict 
their use largely to pasture, woodland, or food 
and cover for wildlife. 

VI Soils that have severe limitations that make them 

generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict 
their use largely to pasture, range, woodland, or 
wildlife . 

VII Soils that have very severe limitations that make 
them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that 
restrict their use largely to grazing, woodland or 
wildlife . 

VIII Soils and landforms that have limitations that pre- 
clude their use for commercial plants and restrict 
their use to recreation, wildlife, water supply, or 
to esthetic purposes. 



Source: General Soils Atlas for Planning Districts 
III and IV, 1974. 



-84- 



For the purposes of broadly recognizing v;hich areas of Alachua 
County exhibit various qualities or potential for agriculture 
the 18 soil types described in the general soil survey for 
Alachua County were divided into groups corresponding to the 
capability groupings of the Soil Conservation Service. Table 
10 summarizes the general capability grouping of the soil 
types by number as they correspond to those soils on the general 
soils map of Alachua County. 

TABLE 10 
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASSES OF SOILS 
IN ALACHUA COUNTY 



General Agricultural 
Capability Class 



I - II 

III 
IV-III 



Soil Associations 
(From Table 4) 

4,5 

2,3,7,8,9,13,14,17 

1,6,10,11,12,15,16,18 



Source: Adapted from General Soils Atlas for Planning 
Districts III and IV, 1974. 



From this information Map #9 was prepared to illustrate those 
general areas of the County which, according to soil suitability, 
have the greatest and least potential for agricultural utiliza- 
tion. 

In general, agriculture in Alachua County is essential to its 
economic well being and important to meet the growing demand 
for agricultural products. Although poor agricultural manage- 
ment practices can have serious effects upon surrounding 



-85- 



ecosystems as well as the agricultural land itself, the impor- 
tance of sound management is recognized by the farmers of Alachua 
County and encouraged by the Office of the County Agricultural 
Agent . 

In summary, it is essential that provisions be made and recog- 
nized for the maintenance of agricultural lands in Alachua 
County. Even though technology is progressing at a rapid rate 
to increase productivity from farm lands, the ever declining 
amounts of land for agriculture use in the County can more than 
offset technological improvements. 



\ 



•86- 




Map No. 9 
GENERAL AGRICULTURE 
SUITABILITY MAP 

FOR 
ALACHUA COUNTY 
FLORIDA 



General Agricultural 
Capability Class 



INCREASING 
SUITABILITY 

FOR 
AGRICULTURE 






IV- VII 



III 



III 





NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



ecosyster 
tance of 
County ai 
Agent . 

In suimna] 
nized fo] 
County, 
to incre. 
amounts ( 
offset t( 



I 

I 



Forestry 

General 

In order to fully appreciate the need for conservation practices 
in forestry, it is necessary to conduct an appraisal of the con- 
dition and capability of that resource in terms of probable 
needs for future citizens. Factors of increasing population, 
a rising standard of living and the development of an even 
greater diversity of forest products are indicative of the 
great demand placed upon our current forest resources. 

As evidenced by rapidly rising prices for forest products, the 
present level of forest productivity is inadequate to meet 
current demands. However, studies by the U.S. Forest Service 
illustrate that forest lands can be made to sustain much 
larger annual harvests than at present. It appears that the 
solution is not one primarily of providing more space, but 
of wise management of forest lands. At the present time only 
a relatively few foresters and private owners are actually 
supervising the maintenance of our forests during a period which 
could have significant national consequences. 

Forestry in Alachua County 

In the publication entitled. Timber for "Tomorrow by the Florida 
Division of Forestry, general information on the forest resources 
of the state is presented on a regional basis. The region con- 
taining Alachua County is comprised of those counties within 
Planning District III and includes the counties of Alachua, 
Bradford, Clay, Union, Columbia, Gilchrist, Dixie, Lafayette, 
Taylor, Suwannee, Madison, Hamilton and Baker. Within this 
district, land ownership is dominated by the forest industry 
which owns 59% of all commercial forest land , followed by 18% 



-88- 



owned by farmers, 20% by other private ownerships, 2% in 
national forests and about 1% in public lands. Of the 
industry owned commercial lands , the pulp and paper companies 
own 89% and fairly well dominate the forest practices of the 
region. These land divisions compare rather consistently to 
Alachua County with some 311,000 total acres of forest land. 

Because of the conflicting values of land use, such as those 
lands utilized for housing, public facilities and utilities, as 
well as pressures for additional lands for recreational use, 
the amount of land available for forestry as for other forms 
of agriculture is most to likely decrease in future years. 
And although some lands will undoubtly revert to forestry use, 
such as agricultural lands which might be put to tree farming, 
it is not likely that minor land use changes will be significant 
and that commercial forestry practices will extend to poorer 
quality land. It is more likely that increasing trends for 
more intensive forest management will continue coupled with 
an overall gradual decline in area of commercial forest lands. 






Over 60% of the commercial forest in the region consists of 
pine type forest. These lands are broken down as longleaf 
and slash pine forest approximately 50%, loblolly-short leaf 
pine forest approximately 4%, and oak -pine forest 10%. 
Approximately one quarter of the commercial forestry land 
is oak-gum-cypress forest and the remaining 13% in oak-hickory 
forest. This also compares consistently with forest types 
for Alachua County as indicated in Table 11. 



L, 

I 

I 



L 



-89- 



TABLE 11 
AREAS OF COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND 
BY FOREST TYPE 
ALACHUA COUNTY 



Forest Type 



Acreage 



Percent Total 



REGION 
Percent Total 



Slash-Long Leaf Pine 141,700 
Loblolly-Short Leaf 

Pine 20,300 

Oak-Pine 32,400 

Oak-Hickory 74,400 

Oak -Gum-Cypress 42,200 



45.5 

6.5 
10.4 
23.8 
13.6 



50 

4 
10 
25 
13 



Source: Forest Statistics for Northeast Florida, 1970 

The Division of Forestry reports that the forest industry and 
national forests maintain most of their land in softwood (pri- 
marily pine) forest while other private owners have more land 
in hardwoods than pine. This reflects at least on the part 
of the forest industry, an effort to convert land to pine forest 
crops. Such is the case in the majority of northern Florida where 
land owners favor pine over other species because of its relative 
hardiness, high fiber content, wide usefullness and ease of 
propagation. 

Measures of Forest Quality 

There are two parameters commonly employed as measures of forest 
quality. These are stocking class and site class ratings. These 
parameters are described as follows: 



i 



Growing stock trees are defined as living trees of any commercial 
species qualifying as desirable or acceptable trees. The amount 
of land well stocked with such trees is a good indicator of forest 
management practice. 



-90- 



stocking values are usually expressed as a percentage and 
do not necessarily reflect an actual volume of timber. That 
is , the stocking standard is based upon the number of acceptable 
trees per acre by total numbers when under 5 inches in diameter. 
When over 5 inches in diameter, the minimum basal area is 
used and expressed in square inches to determine the percent 
stocking value. Values are determined by sampling a statis- 
tical number of trees occurring in each unit area meeting 
minimum standards. By awarding a number of stocking percentage 
points for each sample group evaluated, it is possible to exceed 
100%. For example, the miniii^um number of seedlings per acre 
for full stocking would be 600 and for full stocking of an 
area of trees with a 10 inch diameter at breast height (D.B.H.) 
there would be 155 trees per acre with an average minimum basal 
area of 85 square inches. 

Stocking percentages for the purposes of comparing forested areas 
are classified as follows: 

Overstocked, greater than 130% Medium stocked, 60-99% 

Fully stocked, 100-130% Poorly stocked, 16.7-59% 

Understocked, less than 16,7%. 

The following table illustrates how Alachua County fares when 
forest management is judged by stocking percentages: 

TABLE 12 

AREA OF COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND 

BY STOCKING CLASSES OF GROWING STOCK TREES 

Acreage Stocking Percentage 

10,100 greater than 130 

33,800 100 to 130 

131,700 60 to 99 

101,300 16.7 to 59 

34 ,100 less than 16.7 

311,000 Total Acres 

Source: Forest Statistics for Northeast Florida, 1970. 

-91- 



1 
] 



i 



The site class rating is a classification of forest land in 
terms of its inherent capacity to grow crops of industrial 
wood based on fully stocked natural stands. The rating is 
indicative of the ability of an area to produce a desirable 
rate of timber growth and is related to the value of land for 
forest purposes. The scale is listed as follows: 

Class 1 - Sites capable of producing 165 or more cubic 

feet per acre annually. 
Class 2 - Sites capable of producing 120 to 165 cubic 

feet per acre annually. 
Class 3 - Sites capable of producing 85 to 120 cubic 

feet per acre annually. 
Class 4 - Sites capable of producing 50 to 85 cubic 

feet per acre annually. 
Class 5 - Sites incapable of producing 50 cubic feet 

per acre annually by excluding unproductive 

sites. 

Table 13 suggests that of the total 311,000 acres of commercial 
forest land in Alachua County only relatively few of these lands 
exhibit a really good natural environment for timber production. 

TABLE 13 

ARCES OF COMMERCIAL FOREST IN ALACHUA COUNTY 

BY SITE CLASS RATING 

Class Acreage Percentage 

1 15,200 4.9 

2 15,200 4.9 

3 98,000 31.5 

4 180,000 58.0 

5 16,900 5.5 

Source: Forest Statistics for Northeast Florida, 1970. 



-92- 



The previous two charts are self explanatory. They illustrate 
that while large areas of Alachua County are apparently well 
stocked and well m.= naged , large acreages exist where there is 
a definite need for improvement. 

Primary tree types harvested and utilized in the region include 
but are no means limited to the two principal classes of trees : 

Soft Woods - Pine, Cypress, Cedar 

Hard Woods - Red and White Oaks, Black Tupelo 

and Sweet Gum, Bay and Magnolia, Ash, Elm, 
Hackberry, Hard and Soft Maple, Hickory, 
Bass Wood and others. 

Appendix 2 has been included to illustrate the type and variety 
of trees and other natural vegetation found in North Central 
Florida, the majority of which have been identified in Alachua 
County . 

There are 28 primary processing plants in this region. The 
three located in Alachua County consist of one saw mill, one 
veneer mill and one pole and post plant. No figures on indus- 
try usage are available for the County. 

Forest Management 

Conservation, as applied to forest resources, implies management 
by man to improve the quality of the forest and increase the 
potential harvest beyond what nature would do if left alone. 
The concept of sustained yield is basic to the conservation of 
forests. In the case of sustained yield, the harvest does 
not exceed the growth, however, the possible volume of annual 
harvest varies with the intensity of management from a minimum 



-93- 



I 
I 
I 

i 

1 

II 



of natural growth without any management to a maximum limited 
only by technical expertise and assistance in tree growing. 
Between the two extremes there lies an economical level of 
sustained yield for any forest site. The establishment of this 
optimal level of yield requires extensive work by professional 
foresters to carefully plan and maintain a long range program 
for forest management. 

There are many sound practices that have been developed for 
the improved management and maintenance of timber lands. A 
few of the more common practices include thinning to reduce 
forest density, pruning lower limbs to reduce knots and up- 
grade the quality of logs, initiation of a selective logging 
or continuous harvesting system and many other methods by 
which experienced foresters can facilitate efficient forest 
management under any system of commercial forestry. 

Problems which must be handled within the Alachua County area 
include forest regeneration which must occur where timber 
stocks have been seriously depleted, combating mortality of 
timber through fire, disease and weather, as well as new man- 
made dangers such as flooding, construction and lowering of 
the water table. Other problems include the taxation of forest 
lands, pollution and lesser problems concerning timber production 

Many of these problems are routinely handled through the office 
of the Alachua County Forester which is jointly sponsored by the 
Alachua County Board of County Commissioners and the Florida 
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. This office is 
staffed by trained foresters who will provide, upon request, 
limited consultation to private individuals as well as commercial 

forest industries. Other services provided to the County include 
forest fire fighting capabilities, public education through 
elementary school programs, seedling sales and other related 
activities . 

-94- 



1) Non-forested lands 

2) Agricultural and pasture lands 

3) Pine lands 

4) Upland hardwoods 

5) Prairie 

6) Lowland hardwoods 

These vegetative types are presented for illustration and evalua- 
tion on Map #10. Their order of sensitivity to development was 
determined with the assistance of an Alachua County Forester. 



f 



Map Preparation 

For the purposes of comparing forest resources to other natural 
resources of Alachua County, it V7as necessary to categorize 
forest and other vegetation types into six different groups. 
These categories were developed with the assistance of the County I 
Forester and defined from a recent aerial photograph of Alachua 
County having a scale of one inch to one mile. Listed below are I 
the vegetative categories selected for definition in order of ' 
increasing sensitivity to intensive land uses; 



\ 



-95- 




Map No. 10 
GENERAL VEGETATION 
MAP 

FOR 
ALACHUA COUNTY 
FLORIDA 



INCREASING 
SENSITIVITY 




T7T7TTTTTJTTTT 
I I I I I I I 
I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I t I I I I I 1 

lllllilillllll 



Non-Forested 



Agriculture 
and Feature 



Pinelands 



'\-^<';V'>-lll'}- Upland 

'^i' h '•: . / < ^ V*^ : H a rd woods 



Prairie 



■:^ityv:o4C^ 



Lowland 
'fH Hardwoods 




NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



[ 

p 



Map Prepaj 

For the pi 
resources 
forest an< 
These cat( 
Forester , 
County ha' 
the veget. 
increasin< 

1) Non-f< 

2) Agric- 

3) Pine 

4) Uplan< 

5) Prair 

6) Lowla; 

These veg' 
tion on M 
determine' 



I 
I 

I 
1 
1 
I 
j 
I 
I 
1 



1 

11 

ll 
II 
J 



WILDLIFE RESOURCES 

Introduction 

In the material economy of today's world, wildlife occupies only 
a small role, but is becoming increasingly important to the 
quality of life and enrichment of modern living. During the 
early years of this country, wildlife occupied an important 
position by providing commercial value as furs and a vital food 
supply. Today, however, wildlife constitutes a major founda- 
tion of the growing recreational industry and in a small way, 
is still important to the control of agricultural pests in 
addition to its high esthetic value. 

Wildlife forms an essential element of outdoor recreation 
activities. The esthetic value of wildlife to an ever increas- 
ing number of individuals is almost beyond measure. In Florida, 
the wildlife community plays a major role in natural ecosystems 
and functions in many ways to maintain and insure the complexity 
and stability between the State's interacting natural systems. 
The loss of any species reduces the numbers and types of inter- 
actions which may occur in the normally diverse natural system 
and therefore may reduce the ecological value of that system. 
Valuable functions of the wildlife community, in addition to 
those mentioned including the redistribution and. recycling of 
nutrients, their service as indicators of the general status of 
the environment and the aid they provide in the propagation of 
vegetation. 

Wildlife Habitats and Importance 

The wildlife of an area is dependent on many factors, vegeta- 
tion being the most important. Each plant community has a 



-97- 



characteristic animal community, the combination of which is 
considered a biological community, and an ecosystem is simply 
defined as the biological community and its non-living environ- 
ment. Biological communities are normally named for the more 
abundant or dominant species, usually a plant. 



r 



I 
I 
I 



Among the general biological communities of Alachua County are 
included the following communities and some commonly associa- 
ted animals. The swamp forest or lowland hardwood forest is 
normally found in Alachua County in areas such as the borders 
of the Santa Fe River and to a small degree Hogtown Creek. 
Common animals in this community include the otter, red shoulder 
hawk, barred owl, wood ducks, grey squirrel, a variety of 
passerine birds (most common yard birds) and many others. The 
biological community of the mixed hardwood and pine forest 
typically found in the western part of Alachua County contains 
such animal species as the white-tailed deer, gray and fox 
squirrel, several species of woodpeckers and the great horned owl. 
In the flatwoods or slash pine forest of northeastern Alachua I 
County commonly found species include the cottontail rabbit, 
cotton rat, red-tailed hawk and the great horned owl. In fresh- 
water swamps and prairies, typified by Paynes Prairie in south- 
central Alachua County, are found a number of animal species 
including the Florida roundtailed muskrat, egrets, heron and 
bitterns, the sandhill crane and a great variety of water fowl, 
including rails, coots, gallinules , marsh wrens and several 
other passerine species. Prairies and swamps also provide 
feeding grounds for many predators such as the bald eagle , I 

osprey and marsh hawk. 

The foregoing description is only a brief sampling of the variety ' 
wildlife species in the county. A complete list of terrestrial ^ 
wildlife is quite lengthy; therefore, only a representative portion 
is provided in Appendix 3. 

-98- 



I 
I 

f 



IJ 
l] 



II 
J 



with increasing population and pollution, the spread of urban 
areas and ever increasing numbers of sportmen , the quality and 
quantity of wildlife appears to be diminishing due to the limit- 
ations imposed on their numbers and distribution. There is no 
doubt that wildlife resources must be an integral component 
in any resource and development project because wildlife is 
a fundamental part of the total natural environment. 

There are three basic methods for maintaining wildlife populations 
These include: 1) the preservation or improvement of wildlife 
habitat: 2) the regulation of harvest or complete protection 
through game laws and; 3) increasing wildlife stock by artificial 
means. Of these, the maintenance, development and preservation of 
habitats is probably the most efficient method to promote wildlife 
populations. In terms of private contribution to this effort the 
farmer plays a major role in provision of habitats as evidenced by 
the often great number of wildlife that find cover on farm areas. 

Game regulations recognize that every habitat has a maximum 
capacity; and when that capacity for a certain game species is 
overtaxed by too large a Dopulation, the habitat is damaged by 
over grazing and the population starves. Therefore hunting and 
fishing must be based on orderly harvest methods which must not 
take place in excess of the biological minimum limits which 
would insure repopulation by that species. 

Each of these methods, as well as others, are employed by the 
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in managing the 
State's wildlife resources. Work conducted by this agency 
includes the study of wildlife populations, such as on Paynes 
Prairie, the supervision of wildlife management areas and game 
law enforcement. 



-99- 



LI 



Determination of Habitat Suitability 

In Alachua County there is a need for a wildlife suitability 
map describing those areas which have a high potential or suit- 
ability for wildlife populations. In the absence of other 
available information, it became necessary to prepare a map based 
upon a combination of three of the more important factors which 
determine the habitat suitability for wildlife, i.e., vegetation, 
soils and land use. 

In a general sense, vegetation greatly influences the distribu- 
tion of wildlife by controlling the type of food present, and 
the availability of suitable cover in a natural environment. 
Vegetation groups previously defined were subjectively placed in 
order of their suitability for wildlife according to their extent 
and value in Alachua County by a wildlife biologist of the Game 
and Freshwater Fish Commission. A map was then prepared showing 
wildlife suitability in terms of vegetation. 



Utilizing the capability interpretations provided by the U.S. Soil I 
Conservation Service, it was possible to combine the soil types 
defined in the general soils map of Alachua County into six broad 
categories determined by the suitability of each to support wildlife.' 
Because soils directly influence the kinds and amount of vegeta- 
tion and available water, they indirectly influence the kinds of 
wildlife that live in an area and therefore are equally important 
in determining what types of habitat or suitability an area may 
provide for wildlife. A second map was then prepared on wildlife 
suitability in terms of soils. jl 

The third factor to be considered in determining habitat suit- 11 

ability for wildlife was intensity of land use. Because certain 

land uses greatly restrict the number and type of animals ,. 



r 



-100- 



ij 

1 



that may inhabit an area, they are an important element in hatitat 
considerations. Land uses were drawn from the existing general 
land use map of Alachua County and modified with recent aerial 
photographs. Land uses were divided into three broad categories. 
These include undeveloped/ vacant land, intermediate land uses 
including agriculture, pasture and tree farms, and lastly urban/ 
developed areas. 

Each of the three maps was prepared on transparent acetate using 
different grades or intensities of patterns corresponding to the 
relative wildlife value of each map element. In this scheme, 
areas best suited to wildlife were awarded the darkest shades 
and the most poorly suited, the lightest grades. By superimposing 
each of these three acetate maps it was possible to prepare a 
composite wildlife suitability map for Alachua County. The value 
scheme utilized in map preparation is shown in Table 14 below: 

TABLE 14 

COMPONENTS OF THE GENERAL WILDLIFE SUITABILITY MAP* 

Vegetation Soils (from the soils Land Use 

Atlas for Planning 
Districts III & IV) 

1. Prairie 1. 14 1. Rural/Undeveloped 

2. Lowland hard- 
woods 2. 4, 9, 11, 13, 18 2. Intermediate Land 

3. Upland or mixed 

hardwoods 3. 2 , 5 , 7 , 15 , 16 3. Urban/Developed 

4. Agriculture, 

Pasture, Pinelands 4. 1, 3, 8, 12, 17 

5. Non-forested 5. 6 , 10 

*In order of most suitable to least suitable 
in terms of wildlife. 



-101- 



The composite map, noted as Map #11 in the text, generally 
defines those areas which by virtue of their vegetation, soils 
and existing land use would favor or restrict the suitability 
of an area for wildlife. The areas which show the least suit- 
ability for wildlife habitat certainly do not imply that those 
areas are barren of wildlife but only indicate that a limited 
number or certain type of species may successfully utilize 
those areas as habitat. 

It should also be noted that many small pockets of land with high 
or low habitat values are scattered throughout the county. Due 
to their influence on diversity, or "edge effect," these small 
areas of habitat have a value above their intrinsic scaled value 
and should be considered of maximum importance to the total area 
of habitat in which they occur. 

In addition, limitation of scale and the generality to which the 
data available allows maps to be presented restricts the detail 
to which suitable wildlife habitat areas may be defined. There- 
fore, the map should not be construed to be all inclusive but 
only broadly defines those areas of optimum wildlife suitability. 
Smaller areas not identified on this general wildlife suitability 
map are awarded consideration in the map and text defining 
significant natural areas. They are thereby incorporated into 
the total natural resources picture of the county and included 
into the composite map of natural systems identified as Map #14 
in the text. 



-102- 




Map No. 11 
GENERAL WILDLIFE 

SUITABILITY MAP 

FOR 

ALACHUA COUNTY 

FLORIDA 



■ 




■ 




1 


:\:\[\:[:\:[:y> 


■ 




INCREASING 

SUITABILITY 

FOR WILDLIFE 


■■'}':■.-■:'■■'.■:■:'■■■. 


■ 




1 


H^Ji 


# 






■ 



Threatened 

• Species 
or 
Unique 
Habitat 





NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



The compos 
defines th' 
and existi 
of an area 
ability fo 
areas are 
number or 
those area 

It should 
or low hab 
to their i 
areas of h 
and should 
of habitat 

In additio 
data avail 
to which s 
fore , the 
only broad 
Smaller ar 
map are av; 
significar 
the total 
into the c 
in the tej< 



E 



1^1 



7 



I 
I 
I 



] 



AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 



Introduction 



Many kinds of natural areas perform valuable functions es- 
sential to the environmental quality of the County. Such 
functions include aquifer recharge areas, biologically active 
wetlands, forests, flood plain areas and buffer or green belt 
areas around urban centers. The preservation and conservation 
of such areas is highly important to the land use planning 
program and warrants attention in an accounting of natural 
resources. 

Preservation and Conservation Programs 

The Florida Legislature has been progressive in recent years 
and as a result of certain legislation, i.e., the Land Con- 
servation Act of 1972 and the Florida Environmental Land and 
Water Management Act of 1972, the State is able to acquire and/or 
require management provisions for valuable natural lands for 
the citizens of Florida. The Florida Environmental Land and 
Water Management Act permits the Governor and his Cabinet to 
designate geographical areas having significant environmental, 
historical, natural or archeological resources of regional or 
state-wide importance as Areas of Critical State Concern. This 
designation does not diminish private property rights but does 
enable local governments or other governmental agencies having 
jurisdiction to write land development regulations Cor each 
designated area and to implement the established land develop- 
ment principals as outlined. 

The Land Conservation Act of 19 72 was designed to conserve and 
protect environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands which 
are valued ecological resources to the state. A bond program 
of $240 million authorizes the purchase of such lands. 



-104- 



Of these two programs only the Land Conservation Act has been 
successfully used in Alachua County to acquire valuable natural 
areas, i.e. , San Felasco Hammock and the McLeod Ranch or Oleno 
Addition. The citizens of Alachua County are extremely fortunate 
not only to have had the state previously acquire valuable 
natural lands in the form of Paynes Prairie and the various 
University holdings but to have had other important open space 
areas acquired that are equally valuable to the County. 

However, there are many other areas that because of their size, 
potential cost, location, etc., do not qualify for purchase or 
designation as an Area of Critical State Concern. Indeed it is 
impossible and undesirable for the State to acquire or manage 
all those open spaces or desirable environmentally valuable 
lands within the County. 

The Division of State Planning is currently engaged in a project 
known as the Florida Green Plan. This agency recognized that 
although a need exists to conserve valuable open spaces , it is 
impossible for the state to acquire all desired lands. There- 
fore, as a first step toward devising methods whereby local and 
state governments could regulate and guide the development of 
these scenic and environmentally important areas, the Division 
is engaged in a program to inventory and map all such areas 
already recognized within the State. Through Council participa- 
tion in this activity , well over 100 areas in Alachua County have 
been identified. A number of these areas are noted on Map #12 
which shows the general location of major sites acquired by 
the State in addition to other areas considered valuable for their 
recreational, archeological or natural attributes. This map pro- 
vides an important contribution to the composite map of natural 
resources by insuring recognition of some areas which might other- 
wise have been neglected or overlooked on individual resource maps, 



-105- 



n 



1 
1 
I 
1 
1 
] 



In addition to that legislation already mentioned, investigation 
indicates that there are a variety of State and federal programs 
which provide for the acquisition or protection of environment- 
ally valuable land. It is anticipated that efforts will be 
made to have some of the areas noted herein and similar areas 
preserved in their natural state. Therefore, a synopsis of 
those programs identified to date is as follows: 



* 



* 



The Florida Natural Features Program., sponsored through 
the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation 
and Parks is a newly instigated program designed to give 
recognition through registration of the important and unique 
natural features found throughout the state. By such 
registration, preservation by owners will be encouraged; 
however, the preservation of privately owned features iden- 
tified is not guaranteed or enforceable. 

The Federal V7ild and Scenic River ;^ct (PL 90-542) provides 
for federal right-of-way acquisition of rivers which are 
nationally recognized as having unique wild and scenic 
characteristics . 

The Wildlife Management Area Program is sponsored by the 
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Under this 
program large property owners may lease approved lands 
for v/ildlife propagation and hunting m.anagement to the Game 
and Freshwater Fish Commission at a nom^inal cost per acre 
per year. This program allows the Commission to regulate 
hunting practices and foster good game managem.ent upon 
regulated land but in no way restricts the owner from 
utilizing those lands. 

The recently enacted "Green Belt Law" (Florida Chapter 72-181, 
Laws of Florida) allows municipal and county government to 



-106- 



offer tax incentives as a mechanism for encouraging reten- 
tion of privately owned parks and recreation areas as well 
as for leaving forestry and game management areas in an 
undeveloped condition. 

* Chapter 72-309, Laws of Florida allows the State to lease 
privately owned lands for at least 50 years for inclusion 
into the Florida Wilderness System. In addition to providing 
tax relief of those lands , it provides on other means of 
protection for areas set aside specifically for the protec- 
tion of wildlife. 

* Protective zoning ordinances such as the Scenic River Ordi- 
nance recently prepared to allow the Columbia County Com- 
mission to regulate the development along the Suwannee River 
can be developed by any county to suit its specific require- 
ments. Such an ordinance could be an extremely valuable 
tool in protecting or conserving the natural resources of 
locally recognized environmentally valuable lands. 

The reader is referred to the following reports for a more 
thorough documentation of areas in Alachua County having envi- 
ronmental, historical or archeological value: 

1) Open Space and Recreation Study ; North Central Florida 
Regional Planning Council; 1972. 

2) Areas of Environmental Concern in Planning District III ; 
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council; 1973. 

3) Florida Green Plan Site Inventory ; a working notebook of 
natural, archeological and historical sites maintained by 
the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. 



r 



-107- 




Map No.12 

SIGNIFICANT NATURAL 

AREAS MAP 

IN 

ALACHUA COUNTY 

FLORIDA 



' ^ - -J<> vl," 1 



',:/'-;> rr^-oi areas 



SIGNIFICANT 






STATE OWNED 
SIGNIFICANT 

^^^ AREAS 



1 Poe Springs 

2 MCiaod Ranch 

3 Santa Fa RIvar 

4 Oranga Laka 

5 Santa Fa Swamp 

6 Laka Altho 

7 Santa Fa Laka 

8 Austin Gary 
Memorial Forast 

b Gum Root Swamp 
10 Newnans Laka 



11 Lockkx>aa Laka 

12 Magnaala Springs 

13 Littia Garrison 
Hammock 

14 Tuscawilla Laka 

15 Paynaa Pralria 

16 Blvans Arm 

17 Laka Altea 

18 Laka Kanapah" 
10 Watarmalon Pood 

20 San Falaaco 
Hammock 

21 Fox Pond 

22 Davils Mlllhoppar 





NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



offe 
tior 
as t 
unde 



Chaj 

pri\ 

intc 

tax 

prol [ 

tioi 



I 

[ 



* Prol 
nanc 
mis! 
can 
men- 
too 
loc 

The re a 
thoroug 
ronment 



[ 

c 
[ 
[ 

L 



1) 0£e 

Reg j 

2) Are | 

Nor 



3) Flc 
nat 
the 



I 



II 



J 
I 
1 
I 



EXISTING LAND USE 

It is evident that the intensity to which man modifies or 
utilizes the land and its resources affects the integrity of 
almost every natural system in and around that land. There- 
fore, how the land is utilized determines to a large extent 
the viability of natural systems which exist in any area. 
Because this viability usually depends upon the intensity of 
the activity, a map was prepared for this report representing 
broad intensities of existing land uses. 

Intensity of land use is related to all other natural resources 
by limiting or modifying their occurrence or accessibility. 
Therefore, an existing land use map was made illustrating 
existing manmade systems in order that this concept could be 
incorporated into the composite map. This was accomplished to 
realistically assess the impact of human modifications to the 
land in the overall sense of natural system potentials. 

Map #13 in the text, which illustrates relative intensi- 
ties of land use, was prepared utilizing the land use map 
found in the Preliminary Plan prepared by the North Central 
Florida Regional Planning Council in 1972. Table 15 below il- 
lustrates the broad categories of intensity utilized in the map 
and notes the corresponding specific land use which was included 
in each category. The direction of increasing intensity of land 
use indicated in Table 15 may also be interpreted as indicating 
most-sensitive to least-sensitive areas. In this case urban/ 
developed land uses are considered least sensitive to further 
growth and development from a natural resources standpoint and 
rural/developed lands most sensitive. 



-109- 



TABLE 15 
Land Use - Intensity Comparison 

Relative Intensity Land Use 



P 

P 

P 
P 



Least Intensive Rural/Undeveloped , (limited 

use activities,) eg: recrea- 
tion, forestry, swamp. 

Intermediate Ex: Agriculture/pasture I| 

Intensive Urban/Developed, eg. , resi- 
dential, commercial, insti- 
tutional, transportation, 
communication, utilities, 
industrial and mining. 



f 

r 

1 



For the purposes of this report, the map illustrating existing 
land uses was updated with information that was readily avail- 
able and which included recent aerial photographs of Alachua li 
County. This map is utilized as an integral component in 
evaluating the combined interactions between natural systems as 
represented in the final or summary map, noted as Map #14 
in the text. 



[ 



-110- 




Map No.13 
EXISTING LAND USE 
MAP 

FOR 

ALACHUA COUNTY 

FLORIDA 



DECREASING 
INTENSITY 



I 




Urban/ 
D«v«loped 



Intarmedlate 
Land Uses 
[Agriculture, 
Fore8try,etc.] 



Rural/ 

Wi'^'i'^-f":^-^'.- Undeveloped 




NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



f 



Relative 



Least In 



Intermed 
Intensiv 



For the 
land use 
able and 
County . 
evaluati 
represen 
in the t 



r 



COMPARISON OF NATURAL SYSTEMS 

Methodology 

From a comparison of the general maps contained in this study, 
certain interrelationships become visually apparent. Many of 
these are key relationships and are very important to land use 
planning because they illustrate the interdependence of natural 
systems, identify points of friction between natural and man- 
made systems and help to lend a better perspective of the value 
these systems contribute to defining quality of life. Many 
relationships may be observed from the maps included with this 
text; however, for the purpose of illustration only a few of 
the more important comparisons are noted as follows : 

1. Geology/Recharge Maps: From this comparison it may be seen 
that the southwest portion of the County, where the Ocala Group 
of limestones are very near the surface, is the area of highest 
groundwater recharge in the County. Because of the high poten- 
tial for recharge and economic importance of this resource to 
Alachua County (in addition to the limitations such limestone 
occurrances often pose to development) , the Ocala GrouD of 
limestones is noted as having the highest sensitivity on both maps 
The coding used on the recharge map is not intended to indicate 
that no recharge takes place in those areas of the County under- 
lain by the Hawthorne formation. However, due to the nature of 
this formation, except for a few areas typified by solution fea- 
tures such as the Devil's Millhopper, recharge contributed 
through this formation is very minor. 



-112- 



2. Recharge/Wetlands Maps: Only a very few of the major wet- 
land areas are within or adjacent to the major recharge areas. 
Coupled with topographic considerations, it may be observed that 
while runoff from relatively impermeable areas of the County is 
partially channeled through natural waterways toward areas which 
readily recharge the Floridan aquifer, a great deal of runoff is 
channeled away from recharge areas and out of the County. This 
suggests that, should it be necessary or desirable, recharge 
areas of the County could be better utilized to achieve greater 
recharge potential if the demands for water resources throughout 
the region or State significantly increase in future years. 

3. Soils/Agriculture Maps: The general soils map suggests de- 
velopment might best take place over large areas in the western 
portion of Alachua County. However, the soils with the highest 
potential for agriculture (as well as recharge potential) also lie 
within that area. Because of the value and importance of agricul- 
ture not only to the economy of this County, but also to the 
nation, the cost of development on prime agricultural land would 
appear to far outweigh many soil suitability considerations. 
Therefore, perhaps planning agencies should place greater emphasis 
on directing development toward areas other than those having high 
suitability for agriculture. 

Composite Map 

One of the primary objectives of this report is to compare and 
evaluate the interactions between, or sum total of, the moife 
important natural resources and environmental systems within 
Alachua County. As described in the introduction, a modified 



113- 



'/ 



"McHarg" method of superimposing clear acetate overlays is 
employed to produce a composite map of natural resources. This 
composite is noted as Map #14 in the text. Those individual 
maps found in the text and utilized for the composite map in- 
clude: geology, recharge, soil suitability for community 
development, soil suitability for agriculture, wetlands, ve- 
getation, wildlife, land use and significant natural areas. 
By virtue of the varying pattern intensities on each of these 
individual maps, six groups of pattern intensities, are readily 
distinguished on the overlay composite. 

Those few areas which due to shading cannot be readily as- 
signed to one of the six groups have been examined to determined 
the specific factors or resources significant in each area. The 
area was then grouped with the darker or lighter shade composite 
pattern depending upon a subjective value judgement of the re- 
lative importance of the specific resources interacting on that 
portion of the composite map. 

The six patterns represented on the composite map illustrate, 
by increasing pattern density, those areas which have in- 
creasing relative limitations to development. This compari- 
son is relative only to those limitations imposed by natural 
systems and does not include considerations for such things 
as the availability of public utilities, transportation net- 
works or similar manmade modifications of the environment. 

The darkest patterns represent areas which might best be con- 
sidered preservation areas in the interest of maintaining the 
best long-term environmental conditions. Intermediate shaded 



-114- 



areas suggest these natural areas which might best be served 
by a conservation approach to land use planning and regulation. 

The lightest areas do not imply that there are no environmental 
considerations to be made in such areas. They simply suggest 
that (due to the relatively high degree of existing manmade 
modifications, such as urban or industrial development) natural 
systems are not generally as sensitive to change. There may, 
however, be important environmental considerations in lightly 
shaded areas as exemplified by those beneficial attributes of 
natural systems discussed in the chapter on climate. 

The composite map does not show where development may take place 
in the County. Modern technology and building techniques could 
place development almost anywhere. However, the composite map 
can be considered a general guide for broad land use planning 
to show where development would have the least impact on natural 
systems. 

The lakes and streams of the County have all been defined in a 
manner consistent with the methodology employed for land areas. 
It is noted, however, that because of their intrinsic nature, 
asthetic and recreational attributes, planning for development 
on or within their immediate vicinity must involve a great deal 
more consideration than their pattern intensity might suggest. 
In addition, the reader is referred to the report entitled 
Environmentally Sensitive Areas - 1975, prepared by the 
Gainesville Department of Community Development prior to for- 
mulating specific assumptions on areas within the Gainesville 
Urban Area. 



[ 

F 
\ 
I 
C 
[ 

r 
[ 

[ 



L 



-115- 



Urban Fringe Considerations * 

Certain problems or issues take on special significance when 
natural resource or other considerations transcend political 
boundaries. The information presented in this study identifies 
some old and well known issues as well as some new or potential 
considerations which will require the comJ^ined attention and 
cooperation between several local governments . 

Potential issues common to adjacent governmental jurisdictions 
in Alachua County will certainly include the uses of natural 
resources. Cooperation will be required to ascertain their 
use, potential impacts, economics, and to settle the greatly dif- . 
fering value assessments of each resource. Of particular 
concern may be the use and disposition of lands suitable for 
phosphate mining. Similar needs for land use decisions may 
occur in and around areas of high environmental value. For 
example, the City of Alachua has recently annexed lands in 
and adjacent to the San Felasco Hammock, i.e. land purchased 
by the State under the Environmentally Endangered Lands pro- 
gram; also a similar situation is the question of management 
of lands in and around Newnan's Lake and Paynes Prairie. 

General problems common to the County in general, and specifi- 
cally to its municipalities, include the loss due to suburban 
growth of green or open space areas as natural buffer zones, 
historically a visual resource to the community. A consideration 
closely associated with this problem, and particularly indigenous to 
the cities of Alachua and Gainesville., concerns the direction 
and pattern of growth and the suitability of this growth with 
respect to the best long term utilization of the environment 



-116- 



and natural resources otherwise offered in developing lands. 

A final issue v/hich is readily apparent from the study con- 
cerns the establishment of land uses which are not only re- 
responsive to the viability and greatest optimization afforded 
by natural resources but also which pay due regard to the rights 
of land owners. This very complex problem will necessarily be 
an integral element in land use planning activities and is to 
include natural resources as an essential consideration. 



[ 
[ 



t 

L 

[ 
L 



-117- 




Map No. 14 
COMPOSITE MAP 
of 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

FOR 

ALACHUA COUNTY 

FLORIDA 



DECREASING 
SUITABILITY 

FOR 
COMMUNITY 
DEVELOPMENT 




ORTH> 

































iii 

ill 

iii 






1 




4 5 6 


^1 


1 2 






Scale 1 


n miles 



NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL July 75 



and natural 

A final is£ 
cerns the c 
responsive 
by natural 
of land ow: 
an Integra 
include na 



H 

I 



I 
I 
I 



CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the information presented in this report, it is ap- 
parent that all natural resource elements should be consider- 
ed together because they constitute a system of interdependent 
processes. Each of these defined elements is affected by 
the others and in turn is affected by human activities. 
The cause and effect relationship of these svsteip.s is far || 

more complex than any individual map suggests. Therefore, 
planners and governmental officials will undoubtedly need I 

the continued assistance of specialists in a variety of fields 
to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of specific plans fl 
and proposals. 

il 

However, the system of map comparisons utilized m this study I 

appears to be one viable method of summarizing natural resources 

. ... . fl 

data despite the limitations imposed by utilizing subjective U 

value judgments for map preparation. The continued collec- 
tion of data and revision of these general maps constitutes a I 
useful methodology for establishing general patterns of re- 
source values and relationships. Through this method then, 
one tool is established by which the limits and distribution 
of future growth may be better evaluated and planned. This 
and similar documents may be utilized by decision makers 
and planners to continually assess the trade-offs between 
growth and development versus quality of life in order to 
insure that future development is not only commensurate with 
environmental needs but also in the best long term interest of 
County citizens. A number of general conclusions nay be 
reached which generally reflect a need for and degree of so- 
phistication in natural resource considerations for 
local and regional planning efforts. The following 



1 
I 
I 
I 
I 



-119- 



i 



observations therefore are important in that from them the 
reader may extrapolate and innovate guidelines implied from 
this report and put the information presented to use through 
any number of planning perspectives. 

Areas of relatively high sensitivity to development are 
vulnerable to abusive uses of surrounding land as well as 
direct developmental impact. As evidenced in part by isolated 
sensitive "islands" of valuable wildlife habitat, long term 
impacts affected by seemingly very low density developments 
may have, through time, substantial long term environmental 
repercussions. Therefore, potential indirect environmental 
impacts must be adequately addressed during development re- 
view and future land use planning activities. 

The high natural values of wetlands as described in this report 
are not usually respected during development considerations, 
nor is their potential fully utilized in development practices. 
The need for further development policies by all local govern- 
ments is therefore suggested not only for wetlands but also for 
other poorly drained areas within the County. Similarly, 
developments in and around areas of environmental concern, such 
as San Felasco Hammock or Paynes Prairie, need to be thoroughly 
evaluated in order to insure that long term environmental de- 
terioration does not occur. A consideration of the possible 
useful employment of wetlands and other valuable natural areas 
for human purposes would be a useful consideration in long range 
land use planning for Alachua County. 

Land use implications of natural resources as suggested by 
this study are so varied and complex that this study cannot 
be considered the end product of a natural resources survey. 



-120- 



IJ 
fl 



It constitutes only a portion of the total work effort toward 
realizing and planning for the full and beneficial use of 
these resources. 

Undoubtedly new information on natural resources in the future, 
in particular from the soil survey currently underway, will 
provide data which will alter, at least to some degree, the 
implications of the maps presented herein. Such revision is 
in the best interest of the community and should be encouraged 
as new information is available. In essence, however, it is 
important to acknowledge that the interrelationships as ex- 
pressed or implied in the text do exist, and because of their 
far reaching consequences, they must play a key role in de- 
velopment decisions if natural systems are to continue to ef- 
fectively function in our environment. 

Therefore, the individual elements of this environmental 
inventory continually need to be combined, not only with one 
another, but also with information on land use, economics, 
transportation, population, housing and many other items for 
use in preparing comprehensive land use plans and for formulating 
decisions concerning specific projects and programs. 



-121- 






APPENDIX 1 

Excerpt from the Rules of the Dept. of Air and Water 
Pollution Control, Chapter 17-3 

17-3,09 Criteria; Class III Waters - Recreation - 
Propogation and Management of Fish and Wildlife 

The following criteria are for classification of waters to be 
used for recreational purposes, including such body contact 
activities as swimming and water skiing; and for the maintenance 
of a well-balanced fish and wildlife population. All coastal 
and beach waters, including off-shore waters, not otherwise 
classified shall be classified as Class III; however, waters of 
the open ocean shall be maintained at a dissolved oxygen of not 
less than five (5.0) ppm. Streams specifically listed in Section 
17:3.21 by a separate listing designated as "Special Stream 
Classification" shall similarly be maintained at a minimum dis- 
solved oxygen of five (5.0) ppm. 

(1) Sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes - any indus- 
trial wastes, or other wastes shall be effectively treated by the 
latest modern technological advances as approved by the regulatory 
agency. 

(2) pH - of receiving waters shall not be caused to vary 
more than one (1.0) unit above or below normal pH of the waters; 
and lower value shall be not less than (6.0), and upper value not 
more than eight and one-half (8.5). In cases where pH may be, 
due to natural background or causes outside limits stated above, 
approval of the regulatory agency shall be secured prior to 
introducing such material in waters of the state. 

(3) Dissolved Oxygen - shall not be artificially depressed 
below the values of four (4.0) ppm (unless background information 
available to the regulatory agency indicates prior existence 
under unpolluted conditions of lower values). In such cases, 
lower limits may be utilized after approval by the regulatory 
authority. 



-122- 



(4) Bacteriological - coliform group not to exceed 
1,000 per 100 as a monthly average, (either MPN or MF counts); 
nor to exceed this number in more than 20% of the samples 
examined during any month; nor exceed 2,400 per 100 ml (MPN or 
MF count) on any day. This criteria shall apply only to waters 
used for body contact activities. 

(5) Toxic substances - free from substances attributable 
to municipal, industrial, agricultural or other discharges in 
concentrations or combinations which are toxic or harmful to 
humans, animal or aquatic life. 

(6) Deleterious - free from materials attributable to 
municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other discharges pro- 
ducing color, odor or other conditions in such degree as to 
create a nuisance. 

(7) Turbidity - shall not exceed fifty (50) Jackson 
units as related to standard candle turbidimeter above back- 
ground. 

(8) Temperature - shall not be increased so as to cause 
any damage or harm to the aquatic life or vegetation of the 
receiving waters or interfere with any beneficial use assigned 
to such waters. 

General Authority 403.061 FS. Law Implemented 403.021, 403.031, 
403.061, 403.101 FS . History - Amended 3-21-68, 1-17-69. 



-123- 



APPENDIX 2 
A REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF VEGETATION IN 
NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA 



FERNS AND FERN ALLIES 

COMMON NAME 

Ebony Spleenwort 
Lady Fern 
Mosquito Fern 
Holly Fern 
Florida Shield Fern 
Dimorphic Chain Fern 
Clubmoss 
Boston Fern 
Cinnamon Fern 
Royal Fern 
Resurrection Fern 
Bracken Fern 
Ladder-brake Fern 
Water Spangles 
Spikemoss 
Wood Fern 
Chain Fern 



VINES 

COMMON NAME 

Pepper Vine 

Cross Vine 

Supplejack, Rattan Vine 

Cat-claw Vine 

Trumpet Vine 

Dodder 

Wild Hydrangea 

Wild Yam 

Yellow Jessamine 

Japanese Honeysuckle 

Coral Honeysuckle 

ClimJDing Hemp Vine 

Virginia Creeper 

Maypops 

Kudzu Vine 

Poison-ivy 

Cherokee Rose 



VINES contd. 

Greenbrier 
Catbrier 
Bamboo-brier 
Wild Sarsaparilla 
Summer Grape 
Muscadine 
Frost Grape 
Wisteria 



TREES AND SHRUBS 

COMMON NAME 

Box Elder 

Florida Maple 

Red Maple 

Red Buckeye 

Mimosa 

Tung 

Lead-plant 

Devil's Walking Stick 

Red Chokeberry 

Pawpaw 

Black Mangrove 

False Willow 

Saltbush 

Leconte ' s False Indigo 

Tarflower 

River Birch 

Sea Ox-eye 

False Buckhorn 

Tough Bumelia 

French Mulberry 

American Hornbeam 

Pignut Hickory 

Mockernut Hickory 

Coastal Chinquapin 

Casuarine, Australian Pine 

Catalpa 

New Jersey Tea 



-124- 



TREES AND SHRUBS contd 

Sugarberry 

Buttonbush 

Rosemary 

Redbud, Judas Tree 

Fringe Tree 

Gopher Apple 

Camphor Tree 

Wild Orange 

Flowering Dogwood 

Florida Dogwood 

Parsley Haw 

One- flowered Haw 

Little-leaf Titi 

Persimmon 

Heart s-a-bus ting 

White Ash 

Carolina Ash 

Dwarf Huckleberry 

Tangleberry 

Loblolly Bay 

St. John's Wort 

Large Gallberry 

Inkberry 

Holly 

Yaupon 

Virginia Willow 

March Elder 

Southern Red Cedar 

White Mangrove 

Lantana 

Fetter-bush 

Sweetgum 

Christmas Berry 

Staggerbush 

Bull Bay 

Sweet Bay 

China-berry 

Red Mulberry 

Wax Myrtle 

Ogeechee Tupelo 

Black Tupelo 

Prickly Pear Cactus 

Wild Olive 

Hophornbeam 

Redbay 

Swampbay 

Mistletoe 



TREES AND SHRUBS contd 

Sand Pine 

Slash Pine 

Spruce Pine 

Longleaf Pine 

Loblolly Pine 

Planer-tree 

Sycamore 

Chickasaw Plum 

Cherry Laurel 

Black Cherry 

Chapman Oak 

Southern Red Oak 

Sand-live Oak 

Bluejack Oak 

Turkey Oak 

Laurel Oak 

Over-cup Oak 

Sand Post Oak 

Swamp Chestnut Oak 

Dwarf Live Oak 

Myrtle Oak 

Water Oak 

Running Oak 

Shumard Oak 

Live Oak 

Red Mangrove 

Wild Azalea 

Winged Sumac 

Poison Sumac 

Poison Oak 

Black Locust 

Blackberry 

Little Blue Stem Palm 

Cabbage Palm 

Coastal Plain Willow 

Elderberry 

Florida Soapberry 

Sassafras 

Saw Palmetto Palm 

Teaweed 

Storax 

Sweet Leaf 

Pond Cypress 

Bald Cypress 

Basswood 

Winged Elm 

American Flii 



I] 

fl 



I 







-125- 



i 



TREES AND SHRUBS contd , 



HERBS contd. 



Tree Sparkleberry 
Florida Deerberry 
Blueberry 

Possum-haw Viburnum 
Walter Viburnum 
Rusty Black-haw 
Spanish Dagger 
Coontie 

Toothache Tree 
Magnolia 
Witch-hazel 
Black Cherry 
Hurcules Club 
Tulip Tree 
Gallberry 



HERBS 

COMMON NAME 

Shy-leaves 

Yellow Colicroot 

White Colicroot 

Wild Onion 

Alligator Weed 

Pigweed 

Thorny Pigweed 

Ragweed 

Broomsedge 

Marsh Parsley 

White Prickly Poppy 

Yellow Prickly Poppy 

Green Dragon 

Jack-in-the-pulpit 

Wire Grass 

Switch Cane 

Milkweed 

Butterfly Weed 

False -foxglove 

False Indigo 

Begonia 

Green-eyes 

Spanish Neddies 

Rayless Goldenrod 

False Nettle 

Spiderlings 



Pea 



Pea 

Chickweed 



Fanwort 

Indian Plantain 

Sea-rocket 

Grass-pink Orchid 

Wine Cups 

Baybean 

Canna 

Shepherd's Purse 

Bitter-cress 

Sedge 

Partridge 

Sicklepod 

Sand-spur 

Butterfly 

Mouse-eared 

Cootail 

Wild Chervil 

Sun-bonnets 

Lamb's Quarters 

Water Hemlock 

Horrid Thistle 

Thistle 

Saw-grass 

Virgin's Bower 

Butterfly Pea 

Treadsoftly 

Dayf lower 

Horseweed 

Rabbit Bells 

Rattle Box 

Croton 

Milkweed Vine 

Sedge 

Tansy Mustard 

Tick Clover 

Begger's Ticks 

White-top Sedge 

Buttonweed 

Salt Grass 

Sundew 

Water Hyacinth 

Spike-rush 

Elephant's Foot 

Green Fly Orchid 

Fireweed 

Daisy Fleabane 



-126- 



r 



HERBS contd. 



HERBS contd. 



Bog Button 

Wild Buckwheat 

Button Snakeroot 

Cherokee Bean 

Dog Fennel 

Mistf lower 

Dog Fennel 

Spurge 

Cottonweed 

Indian Blankets 

Milk-pea 

Bedstraw 

Cranesbill 

Standing-cypress 

Rabbit Tobacco 

Bachelor's Button 

Hedge Hyssop 

Bitter Weed 

Sneeze-weed 

Rockrose 

Sunflower 

Coast Sunflower 

Heliotrope 

Silver Sword 

Wooly Golden Aster 

Camphor Plant 

Rose Mallow 

Hawkweed 

Fairy Footprints 

Marsh Pennywort 

St. John's Wort 

Pineweed, Orange Glass 

Dwarf St. John's Wort 

Yellow Star Grass 

Morning Glory 

Scarlet Morning Glory 

Man-of- the -earth 

Railroad Vine 

Cypress Vine 

Wild Iris 

Rush 

Black Rush 

Seashore Mallow 

Dwarf Dandelion 

Red root 

Wild Lettuce 

Henbit 



Pepper Grass 

Pin Weed 

Duckweed 

Bush-clover 

Blazing Star 

Frog' s-bit 

Sea Lavender 

Toad-flax 

Match-heads 

Flowering Straws 

Loosestrife 

Barbara's Buttons 

Bog Moss 

Hop Clover 

Sweet Clover 

Creeping Cucumber 

Partridge Perry 

Indian Chick-weed 

Horse Mint 

Indian Pipes 

Parrot Feather 

Watercress 

Yellow Lotus 

Spatter-dock 

Water-lily 

Water-bananas 

Evening Primrose 

Wood Grass 

Golden Club 

Yellow Wood Sorrel 

Violet Sour-grass 

Water Dropwort 

Maiden-cane 

Panic Grasses 

Pellitory 

Whitlow-wort 

Bahia Grass 

Beard-tongue 

Roadside Phlox 

Ground-cherries 

False Dragon-head 

Pokeweed 

Blue-flowered Butterwort 

Yellow- flowered Butterwort 

Small- flowered Butterwort 

Watter- lettuce 

Plantain 



L 
[ 

i 



-127- 



HERBS contd. 



HERBS contd. 



Marsh- fleabane 

Rose Pogonia Orchid 

Painted-leaf 

Jointweed 

Smartweed 

Leaf-cup 

Pickerel -weed 

Portulaca 

Lanceolate Pondweed 

Grass-leaf Pondweed 

Ovate-leaf Pondweed 

Mermaid-weed 

Scurf-pea 

Black-root 

Mock Bishop ' s-weed 

False Dandelion 

Wild Radish 

Meadow-beauty 

Beak Rushes 

Baby Pepper 

Black-eyed Susan 

Dock 

Narrow-leafed Arrowroot 

Arrowroot 

Glass-wort 

Lyre-leaf Sage 

Water-pimpernel 

Snakeroot 

Hooded Pitcherplant 

Lizard-tail 

Sensitive-brier 

Wool-grass 

Bulrush 

Skullcap 

Butterweed 

White-top Aster 

Sea-purslane 

Foxtail Grass 

Sleepy Catchfly 

Blue-eyed Grass 

Nightshade 



Goldenrod 

Bur-reed 

Cord Grass 

Venus' Looking-glass 

Duck-weed 

Smut-grass 

Florida Betony 

Chick-weed 

Queen ' s-root 

Wild-bean 

Hoary-pea 

Spanish-moss 

Spiderwort 

Clover 

Dutch White Clover 

Deer's Tongue 

Cattail 

Sea-oats 

Bladderwort 

Moth Mullein 

Verbena 

Narrow-leafed ironweed 

Ironweed 

Veronica 

Vetch 

Periwinkle 

Florida Violet 

Lance-leaved Violet 

Seven-lobed Violet 

Walter's Violet 

Yellow-eyed Grass 

Zephyr Lily 



Source: Local Flora by Dana G. Griffin, III, Department of 

Botany, University of Florida, and Florida Cooperative 
Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida, Gaines- 
ville, Florida. Mr. Mike Bordyn, Alachua County 
Forester. 



-128- 



r 



APPENDIX 3 
A PARTIAL LIST OF SELECTED 
WILDLIFE SPECIES IN ALACHUA COUNTY 



BIRDS 

Wild Turkey 
Wood Duck 
Horned Grebe 

Double-Crested Cormanant 
Great Blue Heron 
Louisiana Heron 
Snowy Egret 

Yellow-Crowned Night Heron 
Least Bittern 
White Ibis 
Snow Goose 
Mallard 
Black Duck 
Pintail 

Blue-Winged Teal 
Shovler 
Redhead 
Lesser Scaud 
Bufflehead 

Red-Brested Merganser 
Turkey Vulture 
Swallow-Tailed Kite 
Sharped Shinned Hawk 
Red-Shouldered Hawk 
Broad-Winged Hawk 
Osprey 
*Peregrine Falcon 
Kestrel 
Limpkin 
Virginia Rail 
Purple Gallinule 
American Coot 
American Golden Plover 
Common Snipe 
Spotted Sandpiper 
Greater Yellowlegs 
Pectoral Sandpiper 
Least Sandpiper 
Black-Necked Stilt 
Ring-Billed Gull 
Laughing Gull 



Bobwhite Quail 

Common Loon 

Pieded-Billed Grebe 

Anhinga 

Great Egret 

Little Blue Heron 

Cattle Egret 

Black-Crowned Night Heron 

American Bittern 

Glossy Ibis 

Wood Stork 

Fulvus Tree Duck 

Mottled Duck 

Gadwall 

Green-Winged Teal 

American Widgeon 

Ring-Necked Duck 

Canvasback 

Common Goldeneye 

Ruddy Duck 

Hooded Merganser 

Black Vulture 

Mississippi Kite 

Cooper's Hawk 

Red-Tailed Hawk 

Marsh Hawk 
*Bald Eagle 

Merlin 
♦Sandhill Crane 

King Rail 

Sora 

Common Gallinule 

Killdeer 

Woodcock 

Upland Sandpiper 

Solitary Sandpiper 

Lesser Yellowlegs 

White-Rumpled Sandpiper 

Dowitcher Sp. 

Herring Gull 

Bonapartes Gull 



ri 

L 

[ 
[ 
[ 

D 

n 



-129- 



S 



Forrester's Tern 
Common Tern 
Black Skimmer 
Mourning Dove 
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo 
Barn Owl 

Great Horned Owl 
Burrowing Owl 
Whip- Poor- will 
Chimney Swift 
Ruby-Throated Hummingbird 
Pileated Woodpecker 
Red-Headed Woodpecker 
Hairy Woodpecker 
*Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 
Great Crested Fly Catcher 
Arcadian Flycatcher 
Tree Swallow 
Barn Swallow 
Bank Swallow 
Blue Jay 
Fish Crow 
Tufted Titmouse 
Brown Creeper 
Winter Wren 

Long-Billed Marsh Wren 
Mockingbird 
Brown Thrasher 
Hermit Thrush 
Gray-Checked Thrush 
Eastern Bluebird 
Golden-Crowned Kinglet 
Water Pipit 
Loggerhead Skrike 
White-Eyed Vireo 
Soliatry Vireo 
Black & White Warbler 
Worm-Eating Warbler 
Blue-Winged Warbler 
Orange-Crowned Warbler 
Yellow Warbler 
Cape May Warbler 
Yellow-Rumped Warbler 
Yellow-Throated Warbler 
Black Poll Warbler 
Palm Warbler 
Northern Waterthrush 
Kentucky Warbler 
Hooded Warbler 
House Sparrow 
Eastern Meadowlark 



Black Tern 

Rock Dove 

Ground Dove 

Black-Billed Cuckoo 

Screech Owl 

Barred Own 

Chuck-Willis-Widow 

Common Night Hawk 

Belted Kingfisher 

Common Flicker 

Red-Bellied Woodpecker 

Yellow-Eellied Sapsucker 

Downy Woodpecker 

Eastern Kingbird 

Eastern Phoebe 

Eastern Wood Pewee 

Rough-Winged Swallow 

Cliff Swallow 

Purple Martin 

Common Crow 

Carolina Chickadee 

Brown-Headed Nuthatch 

White-Breasted Nuthatch 

House Wren 

Carolina Wren 

Short-Billed Marsh Wren 

Gray Catbird 

Wood Thrush 

Swainson's Thrush 

Veery 

Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher 

Ruby-Crowned Kinglet 

Cedar Waxwing 

Starling 

Yellow-Throated Warbler 

Red-Eyed Vireo 

Prothonotary Warbler 

Golden-Winged Warbler 

Tennessee Warbler 

Parula Warbler 

Magnolia Warbler 

Black-Throated Blue Warbler 

Blackburnian Warbler 

Chestnut-Sided Warbler 

Prairie Warbler 

Ovenbird 

Louisiana Thrush 

Common Yellow Throat 

Am.erican Redstart 

Bobolink 

Red-Winqed Blackbird 



-130- 



Orchard Oriole 
Rusty Blackbird 
Bloat-Tailed Crackle 
Brown-Headed Cowbird 
Summer Tanager 
Rose-Brested Grosbeak 
Indigo Bunting 
Dicksissel 
Pine Siskin 
Rufous-Sided Towhee 
Grasshopper Sparrow 
Backman's Sparrow 
Chipping Sparrow 
White-Crowned Sparrow 
Fox Sparrow 
Song Sparrow 



Northern Oriole 
Brewers Blackbird 
Common Crackle 
Scarlet Tanager 
Cardinal 
Blue Grosbeak 
Painted Bunting 
Purple Finch 
American Goldfinch 
Savannah Sparrow 
Vesper Sparrow 
Dark-Eyed Junco 
Field Sparrow 
White-Throated Sparrow 
Swamp Sparrow 



MAMMALS 



Whitetail Deer 

Eastern Gray Squirrel 

Southern Flying Squirrel 

Eastern Harvest Mouse 

Rice Rat 

Florida Water Rat 

Marsh Rabbit 

Eastern Wood Rat 

Southern Golden Mouse 

Red Fox 

Normay Rat 

Grey Fox 

Bobcat 
*Florida Weasel 

Opossum 

Shorttailed Shrew 

Mississippi Mytosis (Bat) 
*Southeastern Shrew 

Least Shrew 

Oldfield Mouse 

Florida Mouse 



Wild Hog 

Fox Squirrel 

Southern Pocket Gopher 

Cotton Mouse 

Cotton Rat 

Eastern Cottontail Rabbit 

Hispis Cotton Rat 

Nine Banded Armadillo 

House Mouse 

Striped Skunk 

Florida Panther 

Florida Black Bear 

Florida Otter 

Eastern Mole 

Seminole Bat 

Big-Eared Bat 

Black Rat 

Raccoon 

Eastern Spotted Skunk 



b, 



Other endagered or threatened vertebrates of Alachua County 
include : 

♦American alligator 
*Indigo Snake 
*Short-tailed Snake 
♦Florida Gopher Frog 



-131- 



I 



*Threatened or Endangered Species List - Florida Game and Fresh- 
water Fish Commission 

List prepared by the Gainesville Office of the Florida Game 
and Freshwater Fish Commission and the Alachua County Red 
Flag Charette Committee, 1973. 



-132- 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Florida 

General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida , June, 1967. 

Alachua County Health Department, "Cooling Well at J. Hillis 
Miller Health Center, University of Florida", February, 
1965. 

Anthony, D.S., Natural Resources and Managed Growth, Florida 
State Chamber of Commerce Conference, Tallahassee, 
Florida, February, 1974. 

Bell, O.G., A Preliminary Report on the Clays of Florida , 
Florida Geological Survey 15th Annual Report 1922-23, 
p. 53ff. 

Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc., Ten-Year Master Plan for Water , 
Electric & Sewerage Systems, for the City of Gainesville , 
Gainesville, Florida, September, 1965. 

Central and Southern Florida Flood Central District, In Depth 
Report, Eutrophication, A Natural Process Compounded by 
Man , Vol.1, No . 8 , October-November, 19 72. 

Cross, Clark, I PhD, Department of Geography, University of 
Florida, Notes on Personal Interview with William 
McCabe, September 12, 1973. 

Department of Community Development, Physiographic Survey , 
Gainesville, Florida, April, 1967. 

ENFO newsletter, "Land Disposal of Effluents", Florida Con- 
servation Foundation, August-September, 1974. 

Espenshade, G.S. and Spencer, C.W., Geology of Phosphate 

Deposits of Northern Penisular Florida , U.S. Geological 
Survey Bulletin #1118, 1963. 

Florida Board of Conservation, Florida Lakes, Part III 

Gazetteer , Division of Water Resources, Tallahassee, 
Florida, 1969. 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 
Timber for Florida, Today and Tomorrow , Division of 
Forestry, 1974. 



-133- 



Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, 
Geology of Phosphate, Dolomite, Limestone and Clay 
Deposits, 7th Forum on Geology of Industrial Minerals , 
Special Publication #17, April, 1971. 

Florida Department of Natural Resources, "The Geohydrology 
of Paynes Prairie", June 1970. 

Florida Trend Magazine, "Fertilizer Shortages; the Jekyll 
and Hyde of Florida Agribusiness", November, 1974. 

Graeser, Henry J., Water Reuse: "Resource of the Future", 
Journal American Water Works Assn, Vol. 66, No. 10, 
Part I, October, 1974, P. 575ff. 

Gunter, H. , Exploration for Oil and Gas in Florida , Florida 
Geological Survey Information Circular #1 (revised) , 
January, 1949. 

Hasler, Arthur D. , Cultural Eutrophication is Reversible , 
BioScience, Volume 19, No. 5, May, 1969. 

Hickman and Hamlin, Ceramic Clay Investigations in Alachua, 
Clay and Putnam Counties, Florida , Florida Geological 
Survey, Circular #46, 1964. 

Highsmith, R. , Jensen, J. & Rudd, R. , Conservation in the 
United States , Rand McNally & Co., Chicago, Illinois, 
1963. 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of 
Florida, Agricultural Growth In An Urban Age , 
Gainesville, Florida, February, 1975. 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, The Dare Report: 
Water in Our Future , University of Florida, Gainesville, 
Florida, Publication No. 11, April, 1973. 

Kugelman, Irwin J., "Water Reclamation and Reuse", Journal 

Water Pollution Central Federation, Volum.e 46, June, 1974, 
P. 1195ff. 

Mansfield, et. al, Clay Investigations in the Southern States , 
1934-35 , U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin #901, 1935. 

Mansfield, George R. , Phosphate Resources of Florida , U.S. 
Geological Survey Bulletin #934, 1942. 



-134- 



Maxwell, E.L., Mineral Producers in Florida, 1968 , Florida 
Bureau of Geology Information Circular No. 66, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 1970 . 

McHarg, Ian L. , Design With Nature , published for the 

American Museum of Natural History, Doubleday /Natural 
History Press, Doubleday & Co. , Inc., Garden City, 
New York, 1971. 

Medberry, H.C., " Managing Water Resources: Basic Considera- 
tions and Problems ', Journal American Water Works Assn, 
Vol. 66, No. 3, March 1974, p.l73ff. 

Meshenberg, Michael J. , Environmental Planning: 1, Environ- 
mental Information for Policy Formulation , American 
Society of Planning Officials, Planning Advisory Service, 
Report No. 26 3, November, 19 70. 

National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, 
Resources and Man , by the Committee on Resources and 
Man of the Division of Earth Sciences, Witti Freeman 
& Co., San Francisco, 1969. 

National Science Foundation, Environment: A New Focus 

for Land Use Planning , Washington, D.C., October, 1973. 

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, "Florida 
Green Plan Site Inventory and Notes',' February, 1974. 

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Housing, 
1973 , Gainesville, Florida, July, 1973. 

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Water and 
Sewer Development Plan for Alachua County , Florida, 
January, 1974. 

Pirkle, E.G., Economic Consideration of Pebble Phosphate 

Deposits of Alachua County, Florida , Economic Geology, 
Vol. 52, 1957, p. 354ff. 

Pirkle and Brooks, Origin and Hydrology of Orange Lake, 

Santa Fe Lake and Levys Prairie Lakes of North Central 
Peninuslar Florida , The Journal of Geology, Vol. 67 , 
May 19 59. 

Phillips, William J. II, The Direct Reuse of Reclaimed Waste- 
water : Pros, Cons and Alternatives, Journal American 
Water Works Association, Vol. 66, No. 44, April, 1974, 
p. 231ff. 

Planning and Zoning Association Proceedings, Florida at the 

Crossroads : The Management of Growth, Florida, 22nd Annual 
Conference , November, 1972. 



-135- 



Pride, R.W. , Estimated Use of Water in Florida, 1970, Florida 

Bureau of Geology, Information Circular No. 83, Tallahassee. 
Florida, 1973. 

Sellards, E.H., Some Florida Lakes and Lake Basins, 6th Annual 
Report, Florida Geological Survey. 

Shannon, Earl E. , "Eutrophication - Trophic State Relationships 
in North and Central Florida Lakes.", Dissertation to the 
Graduate Council of the University of Florida, 1970. 

Soil Science Society of America and American Socity of Agronomy, 
Soil Surveys and Land Use Planning , Madison, V7isconsin, 
1966. 

Sverdrup & Parcel, for the North Central Florida Regional 

Planning Council, Comprehensive Drainage and Flood Plain 
Designation Study for the Gainesville Metropolitan Area , 
July, 1974. 

Sverdrup & Parole, Report on a Flood Plain and Water Control 
Program for the Headwaters of Little Hatchet, Turkey, 
Blues and Hogtown Creeks, October, 1973. 

Sweeney, John W. , Land Use Conflicts and Phosphate Mining in 
Florida , Florida Bureau of Geology Information Circular, 
No. 72, Tallahassee, Florida, 1971. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Statistics for Northeast 
Florida, Forest Service, 1970. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

General Soil Map of Florida , Florida Agriculture Exper- 
iment Stations, May 196 2. 

U.S. Departm.ent of Agriculture, Contours of Change , The 
Yearbook of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 19 70. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Extension 

Service, "Alachua County: Long Range Plan 1975-1985," 
January, 19 75. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Phosphate Leasing on the 

Osceola National Forest in Florida - Final Environmental 
Statement, Eastern States Office, Bureau of Land Manage- 
ment, 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, The Mineral Industry of 
Florida , Bureau of Mines Mineral Yearbook, Bureau of 
Mines, 1972. 



■136- 



U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Florida , 
Part 2, Water Quality Records, 1969. 

Urban & Regional Development Center, "The Value of the 
Tidal Marsh, Work Paper No. 3", May, 1973. 

Wildlife Management Techniques Class, Oklahoma State Univer- 
sity, The Role of Wildlife in the Stillwater Creek 
Greenbelt, May, 1973. 

Williams, K. , "Geology of Western Alachua County", Masters 
Theses presented to the Graduate Council of the 
University of Florida, 1974. 



The Council recognized the assistance of the following individ- 
uals who contributed information and/or participated in the 
review of this report: 



A.T. Andrews 
Michael Bordyn 
Kelly Brooks, PhD 
William Hurst 
Lyn Kilpatrick 
Steve Nesbitt 

Gary Pafford 
E.G. Pirkle, PhD 
Buster Thomas 



Alachua County Agricultural Agent 

Alachua County Forester 

Univ. of Fla. , Dept. of Geology 

Alachua County Pollution Control Board 

Alachua County Soil Conservation Service 

Alachua County Office of the Fla. Game 

and Fresh Water Fish Commission 

Alachua County Health Department 

Univ. of Fla., Dept. of Geology 

Alachua County Soil Conservation Service 



I 
I 



\ 



-137- 



P!an 
Does